AFW 2016 Status of Women in Arizona

status of women in arizona ARIZONA FOUNDATION FOR WOMEN A supporting organization of the Arizona Community Foundation

The “2016 Status of Women in Arizona� would not have been possible without the work and support of the following people and organizations: Arizona Community Foundation Arizona State University Morrison Institute for Public Policy Bill Hart, Senior Policy Analyst Keiran Vitek, MSW, Policy Analyst Pamela Norman, pnormandesigns.com Michelle Jacoby, PB+J Creative Printed locally by Lithotech, Inc. on Endurance Velvet recycled paper by Veritiv.

SPECIAL THANKS to the Lanelle B. Robson Foundation, which provided additional support for the section on Health.

A supporting organization of the Arizona Community Foundation

2828 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1125 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602.532.2800 | 602.532.2801 fax AZFW.org | info@azfw.org email

foreword

03

who is SHE?

04

safety/social justice

06

health

20

economic empowerment /education

32

appendices

48

references

82

“ I do not wish women to have power over men, but over themselves.�

Mary Wollstonecraft, English writer and philosopher, 1792

I

n 1995, a group of women leaders, concerned about the status of women and their children in the state and across the country, came together to create the Arizona Foundation for Women (AFW). From that beginning, AFW has worked tirelessly to better the lives of women and children by promoting philanthropy by and for women, and educating policymakers and the public about the needs of women and their families.

foreword advocacy), we also focus on three areas of need: Safety, Health and Economic empowerment. We believe SHE Counts!ÂŽ

Our research has always been the guide for our philanthropic investments and advocacy priorities.

This report, our third, continues a proud tradition in our effort to understand the evolving needs of women and girls in Arizona.

As we have noted in our two prior reports, status of women is connected to society’s overall success. For example, a woman who completes her education and plans her family will be better able to support that family. Women with wage-earning capacity and attachment to the labor force are better equipped to leave abusive relationships if necessary. Children in stable, nonviolent homes arrive at school ready to learn and have fewer barriers to successful, selfsufficient adulthood. When women do well, society as a whole thrives.

Over the last two decades, AFW has refined and focused its work.

Over time, we recognize the same barriers to success surface over and over. So, just as we utilize three means to accomplish our goals (research, grant-making and

With this 2016 report, we seek to catalyze social change. The issues we spotlight, the innovative programs we fund, and the policies we influence become triggers for long-term positive change. We believe women and their families

have the right to live free from fear in a just society. This report is the roadmap to achieving such a world.

The AFW is one of over 100 women’s funds and foundations across the globe. We are part of a powerful network and strive to be a key resource for Arizona. We appreciate the support of our fellow community leaders as we work for positive change. We hope that this report provides the inspiration for even more to join us.

Sincerely,

Jodi R. Liggett, Board Member, AFW

Linda Lyman, Interim Executive Director, AFW

3

who is SHE?

I

n 2010, the AFW published “Arizona Women: A Status Update,” which offered a databased snapshot of Arizona women’s standing in many key areas. While progress has been made in certain areas since then, challenges remain. Arizona women often lag behind Arizona men in important areas, and behind women in other states.

So who exactly is the Arizona Woman and how does she fare in the state and nationally? Here’s a look: The safety of women is critical for their physical and mental health, their ability to care for their children and maintain employment. The fight against domestic violence, a widespread and underreported crime, has been hampered by a reduction in funding for shelter and legal advocates in Arizona and across the country.

Non-Hispanic White (NHW) women in Arizona and the U.S. remain in the majority. But not for long. The demographic changes are coming faster in Arizona than in most other states.

A clear indication of this is the fact that the median age for NHW women is 48.2, while the median age for Latinas is 27.8.

While Arizona ranks No. 5 nationally in pay equity with men, Arizona women still only earn 84 cents for every dollar a NHW man earns. Women of color fare worse.

Despite the gains of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), 15% of Arizona women are uninsured, ranking it 10th worst in the nation. A higher percentage of women in Arizona (22%) than in the nation (17%) lack a personal health care provider.

Slightly more women in Arizona are unemployed than in the

U.S. Arizona women hold a smaller share of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) positions (27.1%), slightly more than the national average (28.8%).

Less than 25% of Arizona women age 25 and older have a high school diploma and only 26.2% have a bachelor’s degree or higher. High school graduation rates are improving for Arizona’s young women, and the state leads the nation in number of women enrolled in postsecondary education.

Single mothers with children make up a quarter of the family

households in Arizona, close to the national percentage. For an Arizona single mother of two, her median wage is just 29% above the Federal Poverty Level.

This 2016 update will hopefully provide a platform upon which both Arizona women and men can pursue public discussions and policy-making that will improve the lives of all.

For the purposes of this report, Non-Hispanic Whites are referred to as NHW. Women of color include Black, African-American, NonHispanic Black, Native American, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Latina and Hispanic.

For more information, statistics and data on the status of Arizona women, see Appendix pages 50-53.

united states SAFETY / SOCIAL JUSTICE

Domestic violence requests for service on 9/15/16 71,828 Unmet domestic violence requests for service on 9/15/16 12,197 Wage gap compared to NHW men $0.786 Median earnings (annual) $39,621 women, $50,383 men Minimum wage $7.25 per hour Women living in poverty 13.4% or 21,867,396 HEALTH

13% of women (age 19 to 64) are uninsured 59% of women have health insurance through employer 17% of women report having no personal health care provider Teen birth rate per 1,000 population (age 15 to 19) 24.2 EDUCATION / ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT

Percentage of unemployment for women 5.2% Women in professional and related jobs 26.3% Women in service careers 21.8% Percentage of women at age 25 that have less than a high school degree 13.1% P ercentage of women at age 25 who have attained at least a bachelor’s degree or higher 29% SINGLE MOTHERS WITH CHILDREN

Single moms with children under 18 living at home make up 24.4% of families Percentage of single mothers (with children under 18) eligible, but not receiving child support 71% P ercentage of single-mother families with children receiving public assistance 54.3% ; single-father headed households with children 34.6%

arizona SAFETY / SOCIAL JUSTICE..

Domestic violence requests for service on 9/15/16 1,652 Unmet domestic violence requests for service on 9/15/16 233 Wage gap compared to NHW men $0.84 Median earnings (annual) $39,916 women, $43,945 men Minimum wage $8.05 per hour Women living in poverty 16.5% or 567,035 HEALTH..

15% of women (age 19 to 64) are uninsured 54% women have health insurance through employer 22% of women report having no personal health care provider Teen birth rate per 1,000 population (age 15 to 19) 29.9 EDUCATION / ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT .

Percentage of unemployment for women 5.7% Women in professional and related jobs 24.5% Women in service careers 22.8% Percentage of women at age 25 have less than a high school degree 13.6% Percentage of women at age 25 who have attained at least bachelor’s degree or higher 26.2% SINGLE MOTHERS WITH CHILDREN .

Single mothers with children under 18 living at home make up 25.5% of families Percentage of single mothers (with children under 18) eligible, but not receiving child support 77% Percentage of single-mother families with children receiving public assistance 53.3%; single-father headed households with children 16%

5

safety/social justice Victims, Victors, Voters Personal safety is fundamental for a stable society, but achieving a truly just society for Arizona women requires much more.

Few crimes are more socially destructive than violence against women, or coercion through the threat of violence. Unfortunately, they are also among the most difficult criminal acts to measure.

Sexual and physical assaults against women have long been identified as underreported crimes.

They are typically committed behind closed doors, and usually by an individual known to the victim.

Victims may be discouraged from seeking justice by feelings of shame and/or guilt, or the need to rely

economically on the abuser. This reluctance may be magnified by a fear of confronting skeptical or unsympathetic people and systems when seeking criminal justice.

Violence against women includes sexual assault, physical violence (including domestic violence), stalking and sex trafficking. None of these categories offer reliable metrics. Looking at intimate partners only, a national survey in 2010 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that measured lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner ranked Arizona 22nd among the states (1 is worst), with 36.5% of the female population reporting themselves victims over their lifetimes. This percentage is still better than the national rate of 35.6%.

Violence against women includes sexual assault, physical violence (including domestic violence), stalking and sex trafficking.

7

8 safety / social justice

Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, and/or Stalking by an Intimate Partner by State of Residence, US, 2010

Domestic violence remains a major issue for Arizona’s women and children.

See B1 on page 54

40-49% 35-39% 30-34% 25-29%

Arizona 36.5% (Ranked 22)

Nearly a quarter of women in the nation have experienced severe intimate partner violence (IPV) (e.g., they have been hit with a fist or something hard, beaten, slammed against something, etc.). The health impacts to the victim include being fearful, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), injury, chronic pain, headaches, depression, asthma, irritable bowel syndrome, etc.1 Women with an annual household income of less than $50,000 per year have a significantly higher prevalence of IPV. While IPV affects women of all races, women of color experience IPV at a slightly higher rate than NHW women. The cost of IPV is astounding for medical and mental health care and low productivity (estimated at $8.3 billion) and accounts for a loss of 5.6 million days of household productivity each year.

UNTESTED RAPE KITS In September 2015, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office was awarded a grant to eliminate the backlog of untested rape kits.

The office received a $1.9 million grant from the New York County District Attorney’s Office to analyze previously untested sexual assault evidence kits. The award is one of the largest amounts granted to 32 jurisdictions in 20 states, and will be used to test an estimated 2,300 rape kits in Maricopa County under an initiative launched by the County Attorney’s Office earlier this year in partnership with local law enforcement agencies. 2 In January 2016, Gov. Doug Ducey formed the Arizona Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kit Task Force, a bipartisan coalition of victims’ advocates, law enforcement officials and policy makers tasked with addressing the injustice of untested rape kits throughout Arizona.

Throughout the country— including Arizona—crime labs struggle to keep up with timely testing of the kits. In the past, kits weren’t tested for a variety of reasons, particularly in cases where authorities deemed testing unnecessary because the victim knew the assailant and there was no question about the suspect’s identity. But the samples are now considered a valuable tool in identifying repeat offenders.

The task force will provide legislative recommendations to ensure every future kit is tested in a timely manner; develop a statewide standard process for testing protocols of the kits; develop a statewide tracking system for the kits; and develop a public education plan to assist sexual assault victims.

STRANGULATION Historically, professionals have minimized strangulation due to the lack of visible injuries and lack of medical training. In Maricopa County, forensic nursing staff that

see victims of sexual assault, along with county prosecutors, have proactively created medical testing to prove strangulation.

Aggravated Assault by Strangulation 13-1204.B became law in Arizona as a Class 4 Felony and was added to the Domestic Violence Statute on July 29, 2010. The statute defines strangulation as either intentionally or knowingly impeding the normal breathing or circulation of blood of another person by applying pressure to the throat or neck or by obstructing the nose and mouth either manually or through use of an instrument.

Thirty-eight states have passed statutes in the last 10 years to recognize this oversight, increase awareness, and enhance victim safety and offender accountability.

The newly reauthorized Violence Against Women Act of 2013 added felony strangulation and suffocation to the federal law.

$1.9

million in grant money awarded to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office to analyze an estimated 2,300 previously untested rape kits.

9

36.5

of Arizona women reported themselves victims of rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner over their lifetimes.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE First, the good news. The U.S. Justice Department says reported cases of domestic violence nationally have decreased sharply over the past two decades. The reasons likely include increased public education and advocacy, more assistance for women in avoiding or escaping abusive relationships, the slowly rising socioeconomic status of women, and the overall aging of the population.

Now the bad news. Domestic violence in America remains a widespread and destructive social problem. As noted, it remains difficult to obtain reliable data on its frequency. However, the Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence reports that 1 in 4 women nationally has experienced domestic violence in her lifetime.

For Arizona, that translates to 804,048 women.

Another telling measure is the number of calls to 911. For many police departments, domestic

“Arizona needs to empower women to leave their own abusive situations…sometimes it’s easier for women in domestic violence situations to talk about it with strangers who might judge you less.”

— Stacey Ramirez, Arizona resident, mother, and domestic violence survivor

violence persists as among the most common violence-related 911 call—if not the most common.

Abusers and victims can be of any gender preference, any racial/ ethnic group and all social levels.

The abuse can manifest itself as explosive instances of severe violence or sexual assault, or can fester quietly in the form of an abuser’s long-term control over the victim. In either case, the secondary victims often include the children, who witness the violence, as well learn these behaviors, thus perpetuating the cycle.

Nationally, women are killed by intimate partners (husbands,

lovers, ex-husbands, ex-lovers) more often than by any other category of the killer. The Danger Assessment study found women who were threatened or assaulted with a weapon were 20 times more likely than other women to be murdered.

Women whose partners threatened them with murder were 15 times more likely than other women to be killed. And when a gun was in the house, an abused woman was six times more likely than other abused women to be killed. 3 In Arizona in 2015, the Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence reported 67% of all domestic violence related fatalities were the result of a firearm.

11

12 safety / social justice

SEX TRAFFICKING In the United Nation’s Office on Drugs and Crimes Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, sexual exploitation was noted as by far the most commonly identified form of human trafficking (79%), followed by forced labor (18%). This may be the result of statistical bias.

million people are enslaved in sex or labor exploitation worldwide.

By and large, the exploitation of women tends to be visible, in city centers or along highways. Because it is more frequently reported, sexual exploitation has become the most documented type of trafficking, according to aggregate statistics.

In comparison, other forms of exploitation are underreported: forced or bonded labor; domestic servitude and forced marriage;

Women’s Earnings Per Men $1 by Race/ Ethnicity, AZ, 2010-14 See B2 on page 54

Asian/Pacific Islander

80.5¢

NHW

78.1¢

organ removal; and the exploitation of children in begging, the sex trade and warfare.

Under the U.S. Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), sex trafficking involves the use of force, fraud or coercion to induce someone to engage in sexual behavior, unless the victim is a minor. This is a crucial distinction. Girls under 18 engaged in commercial sex (the exchange of any item of value for a sex act) have often been viewed—and arrested—as prostitutes, while they should be treated as victims.

Recent estimates by the U.S. Agency for International Development put the number of people enslaved in sex or labor exploitation anywhere from 12 to 27 million worldwide.

Black

67.1¢

Many people think of trafficking as a problem that only happens in developing countries. However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that 293,000 American children are at risk for being trafficked each year, including many children in Arizona’s vulnerable populations.

Social Justice EARNINGS DISPARITY If “social justice” must include equal pay for equal work, Arizona is not there yet. Compared with women in most other states, however, those in Arizona face smaller disparities between their wages and wages paid to men for the same or similar work.

Native American

58.5¢

Latina/Latino

54.2¢

Arizona’s wage gap ranks 8th in the nation, with women making 84 cents to each men’s $1.

The national wage-gap average for women is 78.6 cents per men’s $1.

Ranking States with Women Heads of Households Receiving Child Support, U.S., 2013 See B3 on page 54

Hawaii 18% New Mexico 20% New York 22%

CHILD SUPPORT Few would deny that “social justice” demands financial support of children from both parents, especially if one parent is raising the children alone. Unfortunately,

Arizona is tied for at 7th for the lowest number of female heads of households receiving child support (23%). The U.S. average is 29% or, alternatively stated, 71% of women heads of households in the country did not receive child support.

In Arizona, the rate is even higher at 77%. It is during and immediately after tough economic times that the Child Support Program’s mission of getting regular payments to families becomes even more difficult, and at the same time, more critical.

The Arizona Attorney General’s Office works with the Department of Economic Security to enforce child-support laws.

Nevada 22% Alabama 22% West Virginia 23% California 23%

Arizona 23% Florida 26%

North Dakota 52% Utah 46% Idaho 43% Connecticut 39% Iowa 39% Wisconsin 39%

Rank 1-10

Arizona ranks 8th in the nation in this wage gap, with women making 84 cents to each $1 made by a man.

The national wage-gap average for women is 78.6 cents per $1 made by a man. But these figures—in Arizona and elsewhere—refer to wages earned by NHW men. Using NHW men’s earnings as a baseline, the wage gap for women of color is even greater (see chart at left).

These gaps have changed little in at least a decade.

Rank 41-50

Louisiana 20%

Wyoming 39% Montana 38% Maine 37% Minnesota 37%

13

14 safety / social justice

Arizona SSI and Non-SSI Households Receiving Cash Public Assistance Income, Food Stamps/ SNAP, AZ, 2010-14 See B4 on page 55

With SSI

Without SSI

230,257

793,260 Married-Couple Family

With SSI

Without SSI

57,693

94,825

Without SSI

228,877

200,031 Women - No Husband Present

With SSI

Without SSI

1,617,185

1,095,554 Total

Without it, many parents cannot obtain the education, training and compensation offered by employers, thus making it difficult for them to reach their full potential as wage earners.  Child care is one of the biggest expenses families face. Infant care in Arizona costs just $469 (4.7%) less than in-state tuition for a four-year public college or 13.3% less than average rent.

Child care is unaffordable for families, taking up 17.6% of a typical family’s income. Families with two or more children face an even larger burden. 

Men - No Wife Present

With SSI

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE Just over half of single mothers in Arizona who are heads of households are enrolled in public assistance programs, including Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Cash Assistance, and SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits (food stamps). The median income of single-mother households is roughly $26,000 (men-only heads of households’ median income averages about $20,000 more).4 AFFORDABLE CHILD CARE Work and self-sufficiency are key components to escaping poverty, and a key support to working women is child care.

$9,166

The average annual cost of full-time child care in a center in Arizona.

See B5 on page 56

Child care is out of reach for lowwage workers. A woman making minimum wage in Arizona would need to work full time for 29 weeks, or from January to July, just to pay for child care for one infant.5



According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), child care is affordable if it costs no more than 10% of a family’s income. If Arizona were to enact this standard, the share of post-child care median income freed up by such capping would be 9.3%. Such a change would increase Arizona’s economy by $3.85 billion.6 CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Arizona is nationally known for its emphasis on incarceration as punishment for men offenders, with an imprisonment rate regularly ranking among the top 10 states. Arizona’s criminal justice officials are taking much the same approach to women offenders,

who make up about 9% of the total inmate population.7 Arizona’s imprisonment rate for women is 5th highest among the states, and it ranks 9th in the nation for the largest percentage growth of women in the prison system.

It’s important to remember that the “punishment” a prison inmate experiences goes beyond her deprivation of liberty. Ex-inmates (some 95% of people sent to prison eventually get out) face a number of barriers to putting their lives back together, including restrictions on employment and housing. As women are usually the primary caregivers, they must also cope with the needs of their families, which often include children already traumatized by other events.

Arizona’s imprisonment rate for women is 5th highest among the states, and it ranks 9th in the nation for the largest percentage growth of women in the prison system.

Annual Percent Change in Women’s State Prisoner Population, U.S., 2000-2010 See B6 on page 57

National

+1.8% North Dakota

+10.9% (Ranked 1)

New York Arizona

+ 5.8%

-3.7%

(Ranked 50)

(Ranked 9)

15

16 safety / social justice

POLITICS Safety means more than just the absence of violence or threats. It means an environment in which a woman can thrive and reach her potential, free of prejudice, gender stereotyping and other barriers to advancement. It means progress

Arizona Women Legislators Ranked by Year, 2015 See B7 on page 57

35% 30% 25%

Arizona has made much progress towards that goal…at least by the numbers. The first number is 1912, when the state was one of the earliest to approve women’s suffrage. The ballot proposition—voted on strictly by men, of course—passed in Arizona’s first election as a state, well ahead of the 1920 amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Another number is four, which equals Arizona’s nation-leading total of women governors: Rose Mofford, Jane Dee Hull, Janet Napolitano and Jan Brewer.

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2015 2014 2013 2012

20%

towards true equality. It means an environment in which women’s votes and political voices are heard and heeded.

The numbers continue. Since the 1970s, Arizona has consistently ranked among the top 10 states for the percentage of women serving in the Arizona Legislature. For the past 11 years, the legislature has always been at least 30% women.

In 2016, Arizona ranked 3rd in the nation in the percentage of women state legislators, with 35.6%. Women currently occupy one-third of Arizona’s seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, though both senators are men.

This places Arizona 8th in the nation, alongside New Mexico, for the proportion of women representatives. Eighteen states sent no women to the House and 33 states sent no women to the Senate.

These numbers are welcome and they also raise a question: Has the presence of women in power helped bolster or even enhance the status of women in Arizona?

No definitive answer is possible, if only because we can’t know what Arizona politics would have been without them. Nor do women officials limit their attention to “women’s issues.”

But for those dissatisfied with their political representation— men or women—voting remains the simplest, easiest and most

Percentage of Women in House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, 2015 See B9 on page 57 40-100% 30-39% 20-29% 10-19% 0-9%

2

Senators

1

Senator

1

Senator

1 Senator

1

Senator

2

1 Senator 1 Senator

Senators

1

Senator

2

1

Senators

Senator

1

1 Senator

Senator

1

Senator

1

Senator

Arizona 33.3% (0 Senators)

1

Senator

1

Senator

effective way of enacting change in public policy. It’s also among the most neglected. Percentages of voter registration and turnout remain low in both Arizona and

17

18 safety / social justice

Top 10 State Legislatures with Women Representatives, U.S., 2016 See B8 on page 58

#1 Colorado 42.0% #2 Vermont 41.1%

#3 Arizona 35.6%

Since the 1970s, Arizona has consistently ranked among the top 10 states for the percentage of women serving in the Arizona Legislature.

#4 Washington 34.0%. #5 Minnesota 33.3% #6 Illinois 32.8% #7 Maryland 31.9% #8 Nevada 31.7% # 9 Montana 31.3% #10 Oregon 31.1%

Percentage of Women Voting and Registration, AZ, 2014 See B10 on page 59 T otal Registered (55.6%)

T otal Voted (37.4%)

C itizen Registered (63.1%)

C itizen Voted (42.5%)

the nation. In 2014, 61.2% of the nation’s eligible women voters registered, as did 55.6% of eligible Arizona women. But registering is one thing; actually casting a vote is another. In that same election, only 39.6% of eligible American women voted, and even fewer (37.4%) of Arizona women.

The issues of voter registration and turnout are especially timely ones for Arizonans because of the demographic changes noted herein (the gradual, but unstoppable shift from an aging NHW majority to a younger Latino majority). This has obvious implications at the

ballot box, as most Latinos are historically more likely to vote Democratic and to support public assistance for the needy.

But their impact will not be soon or sudden. Latinos currently make up only about 25% of Arizona’s voting-age population. In addition, younger and lower-income individuals tend to register and vote less often than older, wealthier ones. Still, few observers of any political persuasion deny that change is coming. Arizona women must ensure that they are a part of it.

25

Latinas/Latinos currently make up Arizona’s voting-age population.

health

Strong Women, Strong State Arizona women of every age and background face a range of health issues, from teen births and diabetes to substance abuse and suicide—problems that are especially acute for minority women. The health challenges Arizona women face are compounded by the difficulties that they encounter accessing physical and mental health care.

PHYSICAL HEALTH Arizona’s women are tied for 20th highest percentage in the nation with 18% of all women reporting a fair or poor state of health. The

Percentage of Adult Women Reporting Fair or Poor Health Status, by Race/Ethnicity, AZ, 2012-2014 See C1 on page 60

NHW

15%

Black

25%

Latina

25%

American Indian

22%

Other

22%

national average is 19%, however NHW women in Arizona fare better with 15%. Women of color in the state exceed NHW percentages by at least 10%.

21

22 health

Percentage of Women in Substance Abuse Treatment Programs, United States, 2010

MENTAL HEALTH / SUBSTANCE ABUSE

See C3 on page 61

Overall, Arizona is tied in the nation at 39% for women reporting poor mental health status. NHW women have a slightly lower percentage than the national average. Both Black women and Latinas exceed the national average and that of NHW women in the state. Of additional concern, the researchers at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) are studying the special challenges of serious mental illness during pregnancy and the postpartum period.8

40-50% 30-39% 20-29% Not Reported

Arizona 39.4% (Ranked 7)

Substance abuse disorder is considered a mental health issue that correlates with poverty and selfmedication, and is a major challenge for many women in our state. In Arizona, 39.4% of all admissions to

Women Reporting Poor Mental Health, AZ, 2012-2014 See C2 on page 61

All Women

39%

NHW

37%

Black

42%

Latina

42%

treatment programs are women, compared to a national average of 34.7%. Arizona is 7th in the nation in the percentage of women admitted to substance abuse programs as a percentage of all admissions.

The National Council on Alcoholism and Substance Abuse calls addiction “a primary, chronic disease with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing the disorder’s development and manifestations.”

Finding help can constitute another challenge. A 2015 report from the Pew Charitable Trusts concludes the number of people with insurance coverage for alcohol and drug abuse 9 disorders is about to explode at a time when there’s already a severe shortage of trained behavioral health professionals in many states. Nationally, an average combined total of 32 psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors and social workers are available to treat every

1,000 people with substance use disorders. For Arizona, the number is 20, which ties the state for 6th from the bottom. There is a range from a high of 70 to a low of 11 in state rankings.

Sometimes, mental illness can lead to the ultimate act. Suicide remains a problem both nationally and in Arizona. Nationally, about 6 out of 100,000 women’s deaths are due to suicide. The suicide rate for Arizona women is higher at approximately 9 women per 100,000, ranking Arizona 7th worst in the nation. The main risk

factors include depression, other mental disorders or substance use disorder, a prior suicide attempt, a family history of mental illness 10 and a family history of suicide.

PERSONAL DOCTOR Modern medicine increasingly emphasizes regular checkups and other preventative measures, but nearly 1 of every 4 Arizona women (22%) report they lack a personal doctor or healthcare provider.

This metric ties Arizona for 6th worst among all the states for the percentage of women having no personal doctor.

Arizona Women With No Personal Doctor by Race/ Ethnicity, 2014 See C8 on page 65

All Women (22%) NHW (17%) Black (21%) Latina (34%) American Indian (37%)

7

Arizona’s ranking in the nation for suicide with a rate of approximately 9 women per 100,000. See C4 on page 62

23

24 health

Percentage of Women with Health Insurance by Race/ Ethnicity, AZ, 2013 See C7 on page 64

86%

83.5% 79.2% 68.6%

66.2%

NHW Latina Black

A sian/Pacific Islander A merican Indian

The rates rise even higher for Native American women, but there is not enough data nationwide to confirm their ranking. Minority women are more likely to be excluded from preventative care and must often seek help via expensive emergency services.

HEALTH INSURANCE In 2014, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) without question improved access to health insurance in the nation and the state, allowing women access to preventative, primary and specialty care. In 2016, we are in the midst of implementation, and time lags due to reporting information may not present the most current state of health insurance access.

At the same time, the flaws of the ACA for certain subgroups have become apparent. A report by the Guttmacher Institute found that American-born Latinas were twice as likely as their NHW counterparts to be uninsured. These rates doubled again for foreign-born Latinas. 11

Millions of people in the U.S. go without health insurance each year. Because Medicare insures nearly all of the elderly, most uninsured Americans are nonelderly (under age 65). Arizona ties for 9th place in the percentage of women ages 19 to 64 who are uninsured (1 being the worst) at 15%. Women in Arizona drop to 43rd place when looking at the percentage of women who have insurance through their employer, which is the most common source of all health insurance at 54%.

Nationally, racial disparities in insurance coverage exist in all states, and women of color are less likely to be covered than their NHW sisters.

Although the ACA has enrolled more than 20 million Americans,12 recent insurance pullouts raise questions about the viability of the ACA without a legislative fix; such action is unlikely in the current Congress.

FAMILY PLANNING Women and couples have the means to control whether and when to have children through contraception. The Guttmacher Institute has reported that nearly half of pregnancies in the U.S.— almost 3 million each year—are unintended, and these pregnancies are highly concentrated among poor and low-income women.

In 2013, 458,900 women in Arizona were in need of publiclysupported contraceptive services and supplies. Large portions of these women are young (20% are under age 20), women of color (66%), low-income (80% have a family income level below 250% of the Federal Poverty Level) and/ or uninsured (30%). Births from unintended pregnancies present a substantial burden on the lives of many women and families.

15

Uninsured women in Arizona between the ages of 19 and 64.

43

Arizona’s ranking in women between the ages of 19 and 64 insured by their employer.

See C5 and C6 on pages 62-63

26 health

Highest /Lowest Teen Birth Rate (per 1,000) Ages 15-19, U.S., 2014 See C10 on page 66

National

24.2% Massachusetts

10.6%

Arizona

29.9%

(Ranked 12)

(Ranked 50)

Arkansas

39.5% (Ranked 1)

Births With 0-8 Prenatal Doctor Visits by Race/Ethnicity, AZ, 2013

TEEN BIRTH RATE Arizona ranks 12th highest in the nation in birth rates for ages 15 to 19, at 29.9 teen births per 1,000 teens. Since 2007, both the teen birth rate and abortion rate have been declining nationwide.

American Indian/Alaskan Native teens had the highest teen birth rates in 2013, while Latinas had the highest rate of abortions in teens age 15 to 19.

Just 38% of teen girls who have a child before age 18 get a high school diploma.13 Many teen mothers drop out of school, which often presents

further negative consequences.

Adolescents and young adults without high school degrees have higher incarceration rates, higher unemployment rates and lower earnings. 14 PRENATAL CARE A lack of adequate prenatal care can have lasting negative effects on both mothers and children.

Teen mothers are nearly twice as likely to forgo prenatal care in the first trimester compared to older mothers.15

See C11 on page 66 NHW (13%) Asian/Pacific Islander (14%) American Indian (36%) Black (21%) Latina (23%)

Since 2007, both the teen birth rate and abortion rate have been declining nationwide.

ABORTION Arizona ranks 25th in abortion rates for 15- to 44-year-olds (at 10 per 1,000 women). Most of the women are over age 20.

The majority of abortions are completed before 12 weeks gestation. Across the U.S., abortion rates have declined by 13% from 2008 to 2011. According to a report by the Guttmacher Institute, this shift has resulted in the lowest abortion rates since 1973. There has also been a demonstrable decline in birth rates throughout the U.S.16 Why have abortion rates declined?

One generally accepted factor is the lingering impact of the Great Recession in 2008; couples tend to put off having children (or more children) during tough economic times. But that’s where agreement on this controversial political issue ceases. Some argue that the national decline in abortions is due to the growing access to, use of and efficacy of contraceptives.

On the other hand, critics of such

Rate of Legal Abortions (per 1,000) Ages 15-44, U.S., 2012 See C9 on page 63 15-25+ 10-14 0-9 Not Reported

Arizona 10.4 (Ranked 25)

arguments credit the decline to the tightening of laws that limit women’s access to abortion. So while the cause is intensely debated, both sides acknowledge that abortion rates are indeed down.17

27

48

Ranking in overall incidents of breast cancer.

Arizona has a low incidence of breast cancer—we are lower than the national average, even among minority groups.

See C12 on page 66

Cancer Rates BREAST CANCER INCIDENCE AND DEATH Arizona has a low incidence of breast cancer—we are lower than the national average, even among minority groups. The state ranks 48th in overall deaths from breast cancer, with the death rates for Black women being significantly higher than those for NHW women.

Latina women in Arizona contract and die from breast cancer at a lower rate than NHW or Black women.

But while women in these latter two categories contract breast cancer at about the same rate, Black women die from it at a higher rate.

CERVICAL CANCER As it is throughout the U.S., cervical cancer remains a major health concern in Arizona, with Latinas

experiencing much higher rates of incidence and death. Still, there is some good news. The CDC reports the incidence and mortality rates of cervical cancer among all women declined significantly from 1999 to 2013. The sharpest drops have occurred among Latinas and Blacks, but for Alaska Native/American Indian women, incidence and mortality rates have remained the same. 18

Ten States with Highest Cervical Cancer Rates (per 100,000) U.S. and AZ, 2012 See C14 on page 67

Breast Cancer Death Rates (per 100,000), U.S. and AZ, 2012

#27 Arizona 6.8

#10 Louisiana 8.4

#9 Delaware 8.4

#8 Hawaii 8.9

#7 Texas 9.0

#6 Arkansas 9.1

#5 Mississippi 9.3

#4 Kentucky 9.3

#3 Alabama 9.4

#2 Missouri 9.5

(Ranked 37)

#1 West Virginia 9.6

Arizona 19.1

United States 7.4Â

See C13 on page 67

29

30 health

A study published in the Journal of Women’s Health suggests that methods of cervical cancer detection could be improved by using alternatives to the traditional Pap smear such as HPV testing and HPV vaccinations for women.19

Percentage of Overweight /Obesity Rates for Adult Women, U.S. and AZ, 2013 See C15 on page 67

Other Health Issues

National

Hawaii

58% Mississippi

46%

68%

(Ranked 50)

(Ranked 1)

Arizona

54%

(Ranked 40)

FEMALE OBESITY The problem of obesity in America is so extensive that even states that rank relatively well on this measure have large populations of overweight residents. Arizona is a good example: Arizona women are tied for 40th lowest among the states in obesity and overweight

Arizona women are tied for 40th lowest among the states in obesity and overweight rankings. Yet that still means that most adult women living in Arizona (about 54%) are considered obese or overweight.

rankings. Yet that still means that most adult female women in Arizona (about 54%) are considered obese or overweight.

DIABETES In Arizona, as in many other states, roughly 9% of adult women report having been diagnosed with diabetes. An additional 2% report it was pregnancy-related, while another 2% report they have been diagnosed as pre-diabetic or borderline. This is truly a national problem.

According to the CDC, the number of adults newly diagnosed with diabetes in the U.S. has nearly tripled since 1980.20 The health complications for diabetes can be even more severe for women with gestational or pre-gestational diabetes. For diabetic women, births are almost always considered “high risk,� as pregnancy-related risks are elevated, including birth defects and infant mortality.

9

of adult women in Arizona report having been diagnosed with diabetes with roughly

2

reporting their diabetes as pregnancyrelated.

See C16 on page 68

economic empowerment /education Constructing the Future

Women and Men Educational Attainment, AZ, 2011-2013 See D1 on page 68

EDUCATION Rising educational opportunities for Arizona women (see Economic Empowerment), from preschool to graduate school, are among the most important drivers of social change for today’s generation and those to come.

College Success Arizona’s Doubling Arizona’s Economic Growth Report, 2016 affirms raising Arizona’s education attainment across all levels will be key to economic competitiveness, and to individual’s social and fiscal gains.

Education ideally starts at birth. A large body of research confirms that early childhood interventions result

Less than 9th grade

Some college, no degree

9th-12th grade, no diploma

Associate degree

High school graduate (includes equivalency)

Bachelor’s degree Graduate or professional degree

in improved school performance later on, higher educational attainment, higher lifetime incomes for the children, and overall improvements for the state in terms of a better educated, more stable workforce.

33

34 economic empowerment / education

Children In Poverty by Race/Ethnicity, AZ, 2014 See D2 on page 69

NHW

Black

17% 47%

45% 5%

Latina/Latino

Asian/Pac. Islander

Top Ten States with Children Living in Food Insecure Households, U.S., 2013

#10 Kentucky 25%

#9 Kansas 25%

#8 Arizona 25%

#7 Oregon 26%

#6 Texas 27%

#5 Oklahoma 27%

#4 Alabama 27%

#3 Louisiana 28%

#2 Arkansas 28%

#1 Mississippi 29%

United States 21%

See D3 on page 70

In Arizona, 6.2% of women age 25 and older have less than a ninthgrade education. The nation’s average is 5.7%. Of Arizona women age 25 and older, 7.4% of them do not have a high school diploma. This ties the state with the national average.

Men and women’s levels are very close in Arizona. The trend in Arizona and the nation is for women to increasingly outpace men in virtually all areas of educational attainment, especially in most four-year college and professional/ graduate school degrees.

WHO ARE ARIZONA’S CHILDREN? Arizona children are relatively equal in number in regards to gender. The percentage of Arizona’s children under 18 living at poverty ranks the state 3rd worst in the nation at 28%, exceeding the national average of 22%.

Of Latino children under the age of 18, 47% live in poverty. The national average is 32%. Similarly, Black children under the age of 18 live in

poverty at a rate of 45%, compared to a national average of 38%. The NHW rate of poverty for Arizona’s children under 18 is much lower (17%) than that of Latinos or Blacks.

In 2013, 25% of Arizona children experienced food insecurity at some point in the year, tying the state for 8th worst in the nation. Children who are hungry often cannot focus to learn.

In 2014, 17% of children in Arizona were being raised in households without a high school graduate, compared to a national average of 14%.21 Scholars and educators agree that a home environment that values academics provides a significant boost to a child’s educational performance. Poorly educated parents are often less able to help their children perform academically.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION High-quality pre-kindergarten programs for 3- and 4-year-olds can improve school readiness, with the greatest gains accruing to the

Young Children Not In Preschool, Ages 3-4, U.S., 2013 highest-risk children. The public funding of early childhood education has been a contested political issue in Arizona over the last decade. At 65%, Arizona ranks 3rd worst in the nation for the number of 3- and 4-year-old children not attending preschool. This is significantly above the national average of 53%.

ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL During these years, children master the basics (reading and math) and learn to function in a much broader world outside their homes. Academic and social skills are needed for success in school and life. Math and reading scores have improved very little in recent decades.22 Gaps by race have narrowed only modestly, while gaps by income have widened dramatically.

In Arizona, 83% of children who were eligible for free and reduced lunch—a common marker of poverty—scored below reading proficiency standards, tying the state for 3rd worst in the nation.

The national percentage is 79%.

See D4 on page 70

60-70% 55-59% 50-54% 30-49%

Arizona 65% (Ranked 3)

83

of Arizona children who were eligible for free/reduced lunch—a common marker of poverty—scored below reading standards.

See D5 on page 71

35

36 economic empowerment / education

Highest/Lowest Eighth Grade Math Below Proficient Achievement Levels, U.S. and AZ, 2015 See D7 on page 73

National

68%

Arizona

New Hampshire

46%

68%

(Ranked 50)

(Ranked 23)

Alabama

83%

(Ranked 1)

Fourth Graders Scoring Below Proficient Reading by Race/ Ethnicity, AZ, 2015 See D6 on page 72 HW (60%) N Latinos (82%) Asian/Pacific Islander (53%) Native American (85%)

For Arizona fourth graders (both sexes) not eligible for free and reduced lunch in the state and nation, the percentage that scored below reading proficiency is much less (48%). Arizona fourth-grade students that scored below the proficiency in reading exceeded all national averages, except for Blacks for whom insufficient data was reported.

In eighth-grade math skills, the numbers are no better. In Arizona, 68% of eighth-grade students were below proficiency in math, tying the state with the national average.

Blacks and Latinos experience significantly higher rates of failure than NHW. Arizona ranks 3rd worst in the nation when measuring these scores by NHW. (see D8 on page 74)

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATE According to the National Center for Education Statistics, Arizona posted an 81% four-year graduation rate for young women in public high schools in 2012, its ranking tied for 38th among the states. The U.S. average for young women was 85%.

Arizona students of color (both sexes) graduate at a lower rate: Native Americans at 67%, below the national average of 68%; Blacks at 73%, compared to a national average of 68%; and Latinos at 72%, compared to a national average of 76%. Asian/Pacific Islander students (both sexes) graduate at the highest rate of all Arizona ethnic groups (89%), though lower than the national average (93%).

“...it used to be that a high-school diploma was just beautiful. But now, as a woman, you need to have an advanced degree. Even a bachelor’s or associate’s degree don’t seem to be enough.”

— Pat Pierce, Bereavement Counselor, Hospice of the Valley

38

Arizona’s ranking in the nation for young women graduating from public high school in 2012.

See D9 on page 75

38 economic empowerment / education

Some students take more than four years to graduate high school. Pregnancy and family responsibilities significantly influence a girl’s ability to stay in school. Poor attendance (due to bullying, sexual harassment, “ditching school”) and poor academics (lack of understanding and completing the work) 23 also contribute to a prolonged high school career.

DROPOUT RATES Dropping out is a process and does not occur overnight. The process often starts prior to a child entering

into the school system. Poor academic achievement as early as elementary school is predicator of dropping out of school.

Many times, not all risk factors apply to all students.24 However, research has consistently indicated the following risk factors as variables that lead to a student dropping out of school:  Poor academic performance  Work/family economic needs  Lack of a supportive adult  Not enough individualized attention

Fernanda Munoz, a single mother of two children ages 5 and 13, is pursuing her degree in nursing.

She describes the major challenge specifically facing women in Arizona today as “. . .competing with men in the work field and raising children on our own.”

Children of dropouts are more likely themselves to drop out. In addition, girls who fail to graduate tend to have higher rates of unemployment, make significantly lower wages, and are more likely to need to rely on public support programs to provide for their families.25 The economic impact of failing to graduate is associated with high levels of poverty, more so for women than men. Nationally, some 32% of women with less than a high school degree live in poverty, compared to 24% of men.26 Arizona ranks lower than the national average with 35.7% of women lacking a high school diploma living in poverty, compared to 29.1% of men.27 This reflects the fact that Arizona men have higher average incomes than women throughout the entire income rankings.

Total Women’s Full-Time Enrollment in Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions, U.S, 2013

POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT

See D10 on page 76 400K+ 200K-399K 100K-199K 30K-99K 0-29K

Arizona is tied for No. 1 for total fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions. This includes full-time and part-time students. The percentage of women enrolled is 61%.

Studies show most students at fouryear institutions graduate within six years.28 The National Student Clearing House Research Center at Indiana University reported last year on a group of students who started their college degrees in 2009. Their major findings and implications included:

Arizona

280,864 (Ranked 1)

 An acceleration of the decline of

overall completion rates, although women completed at a higher percentage (56.3%) than men (49.6%).

Declines in completion rates were across all ages and enrollment intensities. Completion rates are higher for women (63.2%) than men (54.2%) who Start their degree under age 20.



Completion rates declined in both public and private institutions to approximately 63%. 

 Completion rates for students who started at two-year public

institutions continued to decline (only 38%), including completions at four-year institutions to 15%. A greater number of women (41.5%) completed such degrees than men (35.7%). 29

39

27

Arizona’s ranking for number of women STEM workers to the share of all STEM workers in a state.

As of 2013, Arizona’s STEM field was comprised of 27% women, ranking it 37th when comparing women STEM workers to the share of all STEM workers in a state. About 4.8% of working Arizona women are in STEM careers, which places it 16th in the nation. Nationally, women employed in STEM jobs earn 33% more than their female peers in other jobs, and while this shrinks the wage earnings gap

First Generation College Students See D11 on page 71

Why are there so few women STEM workers? Advocates and researchers say it may be due to implicit biases,31 underrepresentation of women in STEM educational majors and jobs, gender stereotypes, or unconscious assumptions that work against welcoming more women into these careers. Work is being done to depict STEM in a more inspiring light in the media and debunking STEM stigmas and misconceptions.32 Given the high-quality, well-paying jobs in the fields of STEM, there is great opportunity for growth in STEM in support of Arizona’s and America’s competitiveness, innovation and jobs of the future.

Ethnicity Majority Black or Latina/ Latino

Graduated

Dropped Out

Highest/Lowest Ranked Women in (STEM) Occupations, U.S., 2013 See D12 on page 77

Maryland Arizona

2.6%

For all the reasons cited in the chart below, first-generation college students were less likely to earn a bachelor’s degree than their peers whose parents had earned bachelor’s or advanced degrees. However, when the outcome measure was broadened to include persistence (i.e., the likelihood of earning any postsecondary credential or still being enrolled), no difference between first-generation students and their peers whose parents attended college was detected after controlling for related variables.

for women, it does not make it disappear over time.30

4.8%

The results for first-generation college students show they are at a distinct disadvantage to obtain a post-secondary degree. Those who do enroll, have difficulty remaining enrolled and attaining a degree.

STEM DEGREES In recent years, the lack of women in the STEM professions (science, engineering, technology and math) has emerged as an increasing topic of concern. While women make up more than half of the national workforce and more than 56% of college students, the White House reports that more than half a million STEM jobs remain unfilled.

7.5%

FIRST-GENERATION COLLEGE STUDENTS

S. Dakota

(Ranked 1) (Ranked 12) (Ranked 51)

First year GPA

24% 43% 2.5

Fields of Study Majority Vocational or Technical

41

42 economic empowerment / education

Economic Empowerment WHAT IS POVERTY? The Federal Poverty Level (FPL) is a measure of income level issued annually by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This is an important national statistic, as it is used to determine eligibility for certain programs and benefits.

FPL amounts issued by the federal government for 2016 to determine eligibility for Medicaid and some other programs are:  $11,880 for individuals  $16,020 for a family of 2

16.5

 $20,160

for a family of 3  $24,300 for a family of 4 33 Critics of the FPL claim it underestimates the true level of poverty in the country. They say this is because, among other things, it’s based on a mix of goods and services dating from the 1960s (although updated for inflation) and thus, does not reflect modern resources and expenses; it does not vary by geographic differences in cost of living; and its definition of measurement units (“family”) as persons related by blood or marriage does not reflect the mixed nature of many modern households.

Arizona women living in poverty.

Women of color in Arizona are twice as likely to live in poverty as NHW women.

ADULT POVERTY Year after year, data show that men typically earn more than women, and women are more likely to be poor. Single mothers, women of color, and elderly women living alone are at particularly high risk of poverty.

In Arizona, a little over 16.5% of women live in poverty. Only 11.6% of NHW women live in poverty.

Women of color in Arizona are twice as likely to live in poverty (Blacks at 22.8% and Latinas at 24.8%). Native Americans are three times as likely to live in poverty at 33.5%. All Arizona percentages equal or exceed the national averages.

EARNINGS AND WAGES In 2014, when compared with other states, Arizona ranked 23rd highest for full-time women workers’ median earnings at $36,916. The median earnings for men were $43,945.

In 2016, Arizona’s $8.05 minimum hourly wage is nearly $1 higher than the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour. Only 29 states and Washington D.C. have minimum wages above the federal minimum wage. Twenty (20) states have minimum wages equal to or below Arizona (this excludes a few states with two-tiered wage structures). This means an Arizona single mother of two working a minimum wage job would earn an annual income of $16,744, which is 17% lower than the federal poverty level of $20,160.

Poverty is often associated with virtually all social ills. A significant proportion of the poor are actually employed and known as the “working poor.” Largely because they are earning such low wages, the working poor face numerous obstacles that make it difficult for many of them to find and keep a full-time job that pays reasonable

wages, allows them to save money, and maintain a sense of self-worth.

The living wage is generally considered to be the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family (if they are the sole provider and are working full-time). The state minimum wage is the same for all individuals, regardless of how many dependents they have.

A significant proportion of the poor are actually employed and known as the “working poor.”

This is largely because they are earning such low wages.

Living vs. Poverty Hourly Wages for Single Women/Parents, AZ, 2016 See D13 on page 80

The poverty wage is typically quoted as gross annual income, which has been converted to an hourly wage for comparison’s sake. This is the official threshold for eligibility for certain federal assistance programs. So for that same single mother with two children referenced above, the discrepancy between living wages and poverty wages is significant (see chart at right).

1 Adult

1 Adult/2 Children

Living

Living

$10.38

$28.59

Poverty

Poverty

$5.00

$10.00

1 Adult/1 Child

1 Adult/3 Children

Living

Living

$22.67

$37.55

Poverty

Poverty

$7.00

$11.00

43

44 economic empowerment / education

UNEMPLOYMENT RATES Unemployment rates tend to change regularly. The average unemployment rate for women in

Women’s Unemployment as Part of the Civilian Population

by Race/Ethnicity, AZ, 2014

Arizona in 2015 was 5.7%, slightly above the nation’s average. Black women in Arizona had a rate of 8.2% unemployment, compared to the national rate of 8.9%. The rate for Latinas in the state was 8.2%, while the national average was 7.1%. NHW women experience unemployment at 5.5%.

See D15 on page 80

Rates for women in Arizona were highest amongst those ages 16 to 24 and over 65. Those ages 25 to 64 ranged from 4.6% to 5.6 %. Annual average unemployment rates for Arizona women have decreased from 7.1% in 2014 to 5.7% in 2015, ranking Arizona 13th best in the nation.

NHW (6.3%) Black (6.5%) Asian/Pacific Islander (4.6%) Latina (8.1%)

Women’s Unemployment as Part of the Civilian Population, U.S., 2014 See D16 on page 78

Workforce participation includes those employed and those unemployed and actively seeking jobs in civilian noninstitutional positions.

National

Nevada

7.2%

5.2%

(Ranked 1)

Arizona

68%

(Ranked 23)

North Dakota

2.4%

(Ranked 50)

OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES Women in Arizona work in virtually all occupational categories. They currently rank 18th in the nation for women in

the management, business and financial sector (supervisory positions across all industries). The largest sector occupied by working women in Arizona is the working professional and related category (scientists, healthcare workers, educators and lawyers); almost a quarter of all women workers in the state occupy these jobs.

In 2013, Arizona Latinas ranked lower than any other ethnic group at 24.4% for the professional and related group.34 Arizona ranks 43rd in the nation in this metric, meaning there are relatively fewer Arizona women in professional and related careers here than in other states.

Roughly 23% of Arizona women work in the service industry (cooks, beauticians, cashiers, retail clerks, travel attendants and childcare workers), while another 21% work in office and administrative support (secretaries, general office clerks and bank tellers).

5.7

The average unemployment rate for women in Arizona in 2015.

See D14 on page 80

46 economic empowerment / education

Total Employed Women by State, Ages 16+, U.S., 2013 See D17 on page 79

3,000,000+ 2,000,000-2,999,000 1,000,000-1,999,000 400,000-999,000 100,000-399,000

Arizona 1,304,785

OCCUPATION AND EARNINGS Men and women were fairly equally represented among management, business, science and arts occupations, but large differences in women’s pay and men’s pay occurred. For example, there were more men than women in management, business and financial occupations (56% to 44%), but men in this category earned a median of $65,616 while women earned a median of $48,179.

Men far outnumber and significantly out-earn women in computer, engineering, science, math and architectural occupations. Women far outnumber men in education, community and social service

“The one change that would most benefit Arizona women today would be to ensure all women had equal opportunity and pay as men in Arizona.”

— Heather Dowler, Mesa Community College student and single mother of two

occupations, but on average are still paid less. Service occupations are split almost equally between men and women, but men earn more. One notable area of disparity in earnings is the legal occupations.

Men comprise 46% of this workforce, while women comprise 54%. Yet men’s median earnings are roughly $97,000, while women’s are roughly $52,000.

On the other hand, the category displaying the smallest gender wage gap in Arizona is healthcare support occupations, a field typically dominated by women.

The median earning here is roughly $24,000 for both men and women. The other occupational category where men and women earn equivalent amounts is office and administrative support occupations. Here, 71% of the total workforce is women; both they and their male colleagues earn a median salary of $29,000.

A Changing Workforce REPRESENTATION IN SELECT OCCUPATIONS Although women are getting paid less than men for similar work, the last decennial census showed how women are increasingly entering traditional male occupations. 35 BUSINESS OWNERSHIP Businesses owned by women have experienced substantial growth in recent years.36 They also play a role in nearly every industry sector.

According to the Census Bureau’s Survey of Business Owners, Arizona ranked 12th highest (36.5%) in the percentage of all state firms owned by women in 2012 (the most recent numbers available). The nation’s average was 35.8%.

The vast majority of womenowned businesses in Arizona and the nation were self-employed individuals. In Arizona, only 10.4% had paid employees. The percentage of women-owned businesses in Arizona was second highest in the nation (after Nevada) in the real estate sector.

The growth of women-owned businesses outpaced total business growth in Arizona and nationally between 2007 and 2012, and also experienced faster revenue growth over this time period.

$44,874

Wage gap between Arizona men and women in legal occupations.

See D18 on page 81

47

“Without the

female voice and power of wealth, women are still too easy to discount.”

Rachel Bennett Yanof Lead Founder, Director of External Affairs, Phoenix Collegiate Academy

49

appendices APPENDIX A1

APPENDIX A4

Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin for the United States and Arizona, April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015

ARIZONA Race

NHW: 56.1%

Latinos: 30.4%

Black: 3.9% Am. Ind./AK Nat.: 4.1% Asian/Pac. Isl.: 3.5%

Median Age 48.2 years 27.8 years 32.14 years 31.1 years 37.5 years

UNITED STATES Race Median Age NHW: 61.5% Latinos 17.2% Black 12.8% Am. Ind./AK Nat. 0.70% Asian/Pac. Isl.: 5.7%

44.6 years 29.3 years 35.5 years 34.2 years 37.5 years

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division

APPENDIX A7 Selected Social Characteristics, United States and Arizona, 2010-14

UNITED STATES ARIZONA

Estimate Percent Estimate Percent HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE Total households 116,211,092 116,211,092 2,387,246 2,387,246 Family households (families) 76,958,064 66.20% 1,569,399 65.70% With own children under 18 years 33,917,911 29.20% 678,836 28.40% Married-couple family 56,270,862 48.40% 1,137,141 47.60% With own children under 18 years 22,823,632 19.60% 438,843 18.40% Male householder, no wife present, family 5,543,754 4.80% 128,740 5.40% With own children under 18 years 2,662,944 2.30% 66,892 2.80% Fem. householder, no husband present, fam. 15,143,448 13.00% 303,518 12.70% With own children under 18 years 8,431,335 7.30% 173,101 7.30% Nonfamily households 39,253,028 33.80% 817,847 34.30% Householder living alone 32,036,772 27.60% 650,349 27.20% 65 years and over 11,569,876 10.00% 232,792 9.80% 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/ index.xhtml; Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

Adult Poverty Rate by Gender, 2014 State Male Female Total Rank

State Male Female Total Rank

U.S. 0.11 0.15 0.13 — LA 0.17 0.24 0.20 1 MS 0.17 0.24 0.21 2 WV 0.18 0.22 0.20 3 NM 0.15 0.21 0.18 4 AZ 0.18 0.20 0.19 5 KY 0.14 0.20 0.18 6 AL 0.13 0.19 0.16 7 SC 0.12 0.19 0.16 8 TN 0.13 0.19 0.16 9 AR 0.13 0.18 0.16 10 NC 0.14 0.18 0.16 11

MT 0.10 NY 0.11 CO 0.11 PA 0.09 SD 0.10 AK 0.10 HI 0.07 NE 0.09 NJ 0.10 VA 0.08 WA 0.09 WI 0.09

FL 0.13 ME 0.11 MI 0.12 NV 0.13 OK 0.15 OR 0.13 CA 0.12 GA 0.13 OH 0.13 TX 0.12 MA 0.11 ID 0.11 IL 0.10 IN 0.11 KS 0.09

DE 0.10 0.11 0.10 39 MO 0.08 0.11 0.10 40 UT 0.08 0.11 0.10 41 IA 0.09 0.10 0.09 42 MD 0.07 0.10 0.09 43 RI 0.10 0.10 0.10 44 VT 0.10 0.10 0.10 45 WY 0.10 0.10 0.10 46 CT 0.06 0.09 0.08 47 NH 0.04 0.09 0.07 48 ND 0.07 0.09 0.08 49 MN 0.06 0.08 0.07 50

0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14

0.16 12 0.14 13 0.14 14 0.15 15 0.16 16 0.15 17 0.14 18 0.14 19 0.14 20 0.14 21 0.13 22 0.12 23 0.12 24 0.12 25 0.12 26

0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12

0.12 27 0.13 28 0.12 29 0.11 30 0.12 31 0.11 32 0.09 33 0.10 34 0.11 35 0.10 36 0.11 37 0.10 38

Notes: See http://kff.org/other/stateindicator/adult-poverty-rate-by-gender/

APPENDIX A2 United States 2015 Population Estimates

Total White Black or African American Indian

American /Alaska Native

Asian, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

Two or More Races

Hispanic

Total Both Sexes 321,418,820 197,970,812 39,925,949 2,369,834 17,976,396 6,583,036 56,592,793

0-14 61,016,787 31,091,353 8,374,966 519,724 3,105,269 2,623,473 15,302,002 15-19 21,108,903 11,468,374 2,990,274 182,159 1,067,455 684,835 4,715,806 20-44 107,466,298 60,864,355 14,440,947 836,670 7,301,953 2,050,253 21,972,120 45-64 84,065,980 57,411,321 9,913,580 585,978 4,444,482 880,679 10,829,940 65+ 47,760,852 37,135,409 4,206,182 245,303 2,057,237 343,796 3,772,925

Total Male 158,229,297 97,579,955 19,077,682 1,167,974 8,561,422 3,238,863 28,603,401

0-14 31,157,121 15,943,915 4,245,654 264,006 1,575,277 1,334,674 7,793,595 15-19 10,797,867 5,888,506 1,516,907 92,686 538,969 346,878 2,413,921 20-44 54,170,569 30,835,160 7,031,444 420,707 3,508,238 987,030 11,387,990 45-64 41,013,523 28,295,849 4,594,617 280,091 2,047,724 417,700 5,377,542 65+ 21,090,217 16,616,525 1,689,060 110,484 891,214 152,581 1,630,353

Total Female 163,189,523 100,390,857 20,848,267 1,201,860 9,414,974 3,344,173 27,989,392

0-14 29,859,666 15,147,438 4,129,312 255,718 1,529,992 1,288,799 7,508,407 15-19 10,311,036 5,579,868 1,473,367 89,473 528,486 337,957 2,301,885 20-44 53,295,729 30,029,195 7,409,503 415,963 3,793,715 1,063,223 10,584,130 45-64 43,052,457 29,115,472 5,318,963 305,887 2,396,758 462,979 5,452,398 65+ 26,670,635 20,518,884 2,517,122 134,819 1,166,023 191,215 2,142,572 Note: The estimates are based on the 2010 Census and reflect changes to the April 1, 2010 population due to the Count Question Resolution program and geographic program revisions. Median age is calculated based on single year of age. Hispanic origin is considered an ethnicity, not a race. Hispanics may be of any race. Responses of “Some Other Race” from the 2010 Census are modified. This results in differences between the population for specific race categories shown for the 2010 Census population in this table versus those in the original 2010 Census data. For more information, see http://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/files/MRSF-01-US1.pdf. For population estimates methodology statements, see http://www.census.gov/popest/methodology/index.html. “Suggested Citation: Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States and States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division Release Date: June 2016” PEPASR6H-Geography-United StatesYear-July 1, 2015Hispanic Origin-Not Hispanic: Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States and States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015

51

52 appendices

APPENDIX A3

APPENDIX A5

Arizona 2015 Population Estimates

Arizona Women in Poverty, 2015

Total White Black or African American Indian

American /Alaska Native

Asian, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

Two or More Races

Hispanic

Total Both Sexes 6,828,065 3,810,113 284,418 275,239 225,927 133,958 2,098,410

0-14 1,347,041 536,711 62,581 67,648 39,116 52,915 588,070 15-19 460,982 195,383 21,912 22,490 13,636 14,278 193,283 25-44 2,242,519 1,088,490 110,889 102,541 97,053 43,566 799,980 45-64 1,657,469 1,082,541 64,495 58,348 53,340 16,453 382,292 65+ 1,120,054 906,988 24,541 24,212 22,782 6,746 134,785

Total Males 3,391,490 1,881,634 148,778 133,789 106,581 66,311 1,054,397

0-14 687,118 274,543 31,981 34,199 19,416 26,865 300,114 15-19 236,191 100,629 11,534 11,327 6,854 7,303 98,544 20-44 1,147,430 557,119 60,507 51,325 48,005 21,380 409,094 45-64 804,934 526,936 33,422 26,783 23,306 7,674 186,813 65+ 515,817 422,407 11,334 10,155 9,000 3,089 59,832

Total Females 3,436,575 1,928,479 135,640 141,450 119,346 67,647 1,044,013

0-14 659,923 262,168 30,600 33,449 19,700 26,050 287,956 15-19 224,791 94,754 10,378 11,163 6,782 6,975 94,739 20-44 1,095,089 531,371 50,382 51,216 49,048 22,186 390,886 45-64 852,535 555,605 31,073 31,565 30,034 8,779 195,479 65+ 604,237 484,581 13,207 14,057 13,782 3,657 74,953 Note: The estimates are based on the 2010 Census and reflect changes to the April 1, 2010 population due to the Count Question Resolution program and geographic program revisions. Median age is calculated based on single year of age. Hispanic origin is considered an ethnicity, not a race. Hispanics may be of any race. Responses of “Some Other Race” from the 2010 Census are modified. This results in differences between the population for specific race categories shown for the 2010 Census population in this table versus those in the original 2010 Census data. For more information, see http://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/files/MRSF-01-US1.pdf. For population estimates methodology statements, see http://www.census.gov/popest/methodology/index.html.

“Suggested Citation: Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States and States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division Release Date: June 2016”; PEPASR6H-Geography-ArizonaYear-July 1, 2015Hispanic Origin-Hispanic: Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States and States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015; PEPASR6H-Geography-ArizonaYear-July 1, 2015Hispanic Origin-Not Hispanic: Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States and States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015

All Women White, Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic Asian Native American

AZ U.S. 16.5% 13.4% 11.6% 9.6% 22.8% 23.1% 24.8% 20.9% 13.0% 11.7% 33.5% 22.7%

Source: National Women’s Law Center. State poverty rates calculated by NWLC based on Community Survey; https://nwlc.org/resources/women-andpoverty-state-state; National Snapshot: Poverty Among Women and Families, 2015

APPENDIX A6 Female Wage Gap State Rankings, 2014

Male Wage Gap State Rankings, 2014

State Median Female Rank Earnings

State Median Female Rank Earnings

State Median Female Rank Earnings

State Median Female Rank Earnings

US $39,621 CT $50,706 1 MD $50,481 2 MA $50,459 3 NJ $48,943 4 AK $46,288 5 NY $44,487 6 CA $42,486 7 VA $42,445 8 MN $42,066 9 NH $42,052 10 WA $41,926 11 CO $41,690 12 RI $41,469 13 DE $41,278 14 IL $40,898 15 HI $40,162 16 PA $39,905 17 VT $39,322 18 OR $38,801 19 WI $37,481 20 MI $37,419 21 OH $37,140 22 AZ $36,916 23 IA $36,522 24 GA $36,468 25 TX $36,428 26 ME $36,137 27

ND $36,087 28 NV $35,993 29 WY $35,652 30 NC $35,481 31 MO $35,311 32 NE $35,101 33 IN $34,846 34 FL $34,768 35 UT $34,351 36 TN $34,009 37 SC $33,719 38 KY $33,704 39 NM $32,473 40 OK $32,186 41 AL $32,136 42 SD $32,048 43 WV $31,712 44 MT $31,696 45 LA $31,586 46 MS $31,465 47 KS $31,162 48 AR $31,161 49 ID $31,019 50

US MA CT NJ ND MD AK NH WA VA WY IL MN NY DE UT CO RI CA PA MI LA OH WI IA OR KS VT

HI IN TX ME MO WV GA NE AL AZ OK MT ID NV KY SD SC NC TN NM FL MS AR

Source: National Women’s Law Center, 2015. https://nwlc.org/resources/wagegap-state-women-overall-2015/

$50,383 $61,611 $61,385 $60,870 $60,624 $59,085 $57,318 $55,716 $54,358 $52,864 $51,926 $51,652 $51,625 $51,580 $50,976 $50,937 $50,898 $50,765 $50,539 $50,412 $50,157 $48,382 $47,737 $47,518 $47,202 $47,194 $46,951 $46,911

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

$46,786 $46,273 $46,235 $45,784 $45,611 $45,272 $44,623 $44,533 $44,245 $43,945 $43,803 $42,679 $42,624 $42,294 $42,203 $42,034 $41,991 $41,857 $41,661 $41,561 $40,971 $40,850 $39,916

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Source: National Women’s Law Center, 2015. https://nwlc.org/resources/wagegap-state-women-overall-2015/

53

54 appendices

APPENDIX B1

APPENDIX B2

APPENDIX B3

Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, and/or Stalking by an Intimate Partner by State of Residence

Women’s Earnings Per Men $1 by Race/Ethnicity

Female Heads of Households Receiving Child Support

State Percent Rank

State Percent Rank

U.S. 35.6 OK 49.1 1 NV 48.1 2 AK 44.2 3 NC 43.9 4 WA 42.6 5 MD 42.1 6 MI 41.8 7 SC 41.5 8 IN 40.4 9 NH 40.4 10 MS 40.1 11 TN 40 12 MT 39.2 13 NE 38.5 14 IL 37.7 15 PA 37.7 16 KY 37.5 17 AR 37.3 18 OR 37.3 19 UT 36.9 20 ME 36.6 21 AZ 36.5 22 MO 36.1 23 WY 35.8 24 HI 35.7 25 OH 35.6 26 GA 35.1 27

DE 34.9 28 TX 34.5 29 NM 34.4 30 FL 34.2 31 MN 33.7 32 SD 33.7 33 VT 33.6 34 WV 33.6 35 LA 33.4 36 CA 32.9 37 CT 32.9 38 CO 32.7 39 WI 32.4 40 NY 32.3 41 MA 31.7 42 IA 31.3 43 VA 31.3 44 AL 31 45 RI 29.9 46 ID 29.3 47 KS 29 48 NJ 26.2 49 ND 25.3 50 Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010, http://www.cdc.gov/ violenceprevention/nisvs/ state_tables_74.html

Race

¢ per $1 earned by a NHW man

Rank

Asian-American

80.5 cents

11

NHW

78.1 cents

12

African American

67.1 cents

11

Native American

58.5 cents

34

Latinas

54.2 cents

21

Source: National Women’s Law Center. State wage gaps are based on 2010-2014. American Community Survey Five Year Estimates; http://www.census.gov/acs

State Percent Rank

State Percent Rank

U.S. 29% ND 52% 1 UT 46% 2 ID 43% 3 CT 39% 4 IA 39% 5 WI 39% 6 WY 39% 7 MT 38% 8 ME 37% 9 MN 37% 10 NH 37% 11 OH 37% 12 SD 36% 13 IN 35% 14 KY 35% 15 VT 35% 16 NE 34% 17 OR 34% 18 CO 33% 19 DE 33% 20 MI 33% 21 RI 33% 22 MD 32% 23 TX 32% 24 KS 31% 25 MA 31% 26 MO 31% 27 OK 31% 28

VA 31% 29 IL 30% 30 MS 30% 31 WA 30% 32 AK 29% 33 NC 29% 34 PA 29% 35 TN 29% 36 AR 28% 37 SC 28% 38 GA 27% 39 NJ 27% 40 FL 26% 41 AZ 23% 42 CA 23% 43 WV 23% 44 AL 22% 45 NV 22% 46 NY 22% 47 LA 20% 48 NM 20% 49 HI 18% 50 Source: Annie E. Casey, 2015 http://datacenter.kidscount. org/data/tables/66-femaleheaded-families-receivingchild-support?loc=1&lo ct=2#detailed/2/2-52/ false/868,867,133,38,35/ any/366,367

APPENDIX B4 Receipt of Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Cash Public Assistance Income, or Food Stamps/SNAP in the Past 12 Months by Household Type for Children under 18 Years in Households 2014

UNITED STATES Estimate Margin of Error

ARIZONA Estimate Margin of Error

Total: 73,558,152 +/-7,347 1,617,185 +/-461 Living in household WITH Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cash public assistance income, or 20,612,350 +/-126,615 521,631 +/-6,944 Food Stamps/SNAP in the past 12 months: In family households: 20,416,376 +/-124,600 516,827 +/-6,850 In married-couple family 8,169,576 +/-39,702 230,257 +/-5,996 In male householder, no wife present, family 1,917,967 +/-24,390 57,693 +/-3,225 In female householder, no husband present, family 10,328,833 +/-79,085 228,877 +/-5,319 In nonfamily households 195,974 +/-6,143 4,804 +/-851

Living in household with NO Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cash public assistance income, or 52,945,802 +/-120,950 1,095,554 +/-6,995 Food Stamps/SNAP in the past 12 months: In family households: 52,630,185 +/-124,101 1,088,116 +/-7,095 In married-couple family 40,319,755 +/-209,034 793,260 +/-7,850 In male householder, no wife present, family 3,621,800 +/-41,940 94,825 +/-3,848 In female householder, no husband present, family 8,688,630 +/-58,325 200,031 +/-5,163 In nonfamily households 315,617 +/-6,043 7,438 +/-962

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Population under 18 years in households. 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Notes: Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables. While the 2010-2014 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities; Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization. “Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation section; Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section.” Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties

55

56 appendices

APPENDIX B5 Cost of Child Care by State

Average Annual Cost Cost of Infant Care as State of Full-Time Infant % of Women’s Median Rank

Care in a Center Annual Earnings

MN $13,993 MA $16,549 NY $14,508 CO $13,143 WI $11,342 IL $12,568 KS $10,787 WA $12,332 NH $11,901 HI $11,748 RI $12,662 OR $11,078 CT $13,241 NV $10,095 MT $8,858 MD $13,897 CA $11,628 NE $9,100 PA $10,470 MI $9,724 IA $9,185 ME $9,360 NC $9,107 VT $10,103 MO $8,736 WV $7,800

% of Four-Year-Olds Enrolled in State Pre-K, Preschool Special Education + State/ Federal Head Start

35.0% 1 34.1% 2 33.1% 3 32.9% 4 31.5% 5 31.4% 6 30.8% 7 29.9% 8 29.8% 9 29.4% 10 29.4% 11 29.2% 12 28.8% 13 28.8% 14 28.0% 15 27.9% 16 27.7% 17 27.7% 18 27.6% 19 26.3% 20 26.2% 21 26.0% 22 26.0% 23 26.0% 24 25.7% 25 25.7% 26

15.2% 25.3% 60.5% 34.1% 72.4% 41.4% 36.2% 20.1% 12.3% 13.4% 18.4% 23.0% 25.9% 13.9% 21.8% 48.3% 28.7% 34.6% 28.4% 35.5% 70.4% 51.8% 34.2% 79.6% 19.0% 85.3%

Average Annual Cost Cost of Infant Care as State of Full-Time Infant % of Women’s Median Rank

Care in a Center Annual Earnings

WY $9,233 AZ $9,166 FL $8,376 TX $8,619 VA $10,028 IN $8,281 OK $7,741 NJ $11,534 AK $10,280 UT $8,052 ND $7,871 DE $9,058 ID $6,483 OH $7,771 NM $7,523 GA $7,025 SC $6,372 AR $5,933 KY $6,194 SD $5,571 MS $5,496 LA $5,655 TN $5,857 AL $5,547

% of Four-Year-Olds Enrolled in State Pre-K, Preschool Special Education + State/ Federal Head Start

25.6% 27 25.5% 28 24.6% 29 24.6% 30 24.5% 31 24.4% 32 24.2% 33 24.0% 34 23.9% 35 23.0% 36 22.5% 37 22.1% 38 21.6% 39 21.6% 40 21.5% 41 20.1% 42 19.9% 43 19.8% 44 18.7% 45 18.6% 46 18.3% 47 17.7% 48 17.5% 49 16.8% 50

24.2% 19.0% 88.6% 61.6% 26.5% 14.5% 87.1% 39.8% 21.7% 13.0% 22.4% 18.9% 12.8% 19.1% 39.1% 65.9% 50.9% 50.6% 44.3% 24.0% 37.0% 45.0% 34.6% 22.9%

Source: Child Care Aware of America 2014; IWPR analysis of American Community Survey microdata, 2013; Barnett, Carolan, Squires, and Clarke Brown (National Institute for Early Education Research 2013)

APPENDIX B6

APPENDIX B7

APPENDIX B9

Average Annual Percent Change in Female State Prisoner Population (2000-2010)

AZ Women Legislators Rank by Year

Women in the U.S. Congress, 2015

State % Change Rank U.S. ND AK WV ME VT MA SD KY AZ OR FL IN MN NM PA NH RI UT ID NE CO NC TN AR WY VA OH

1.8 10.9 9.2 8.2 7.5 7.3 7.1 6.5 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.3 3.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

State % Change Rank WA MT AL GA IA KS MO NV HI LA TX SC IL OK MS CA WI MI MD CT DE NJ NY

3.1 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 -0.6 -0.7 -1.0 -1.2 -1.4 -1.5 -2.2 -3.4 -3.7

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Prisoners in 2011” (December 2012, NCJ 239808, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/)

Year

% Total

Rank

2015 35.6 2014 35.6 2013 35.6 2012 33.3 2011 34.4 2010 32.2 2009 31.1 2008 34.4 2007 33.3 2006 33.3 2005 33.3 2004 27.8 2003 27.8 2002 35.6 2001 35.6 2000 35.6 1999 35.6

3 3 3 4 3 7 9 6 6 3 3 14 13 2 2 2 3

1998 36.7 1997 37.8 1996 30 1995 30

2 2 4 4

Year

% Total

1994 33.3 1993 33.3 1992 34.4 1991 34.4 1990 30 1989 30 1988 23.3 1987 23.3 1986 20 1985 20 1984 21.1 1983 21.1 1981 18.9 1979 18.9 1977 17.8 1975 20

Rank 3 2 1 1 4 4 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 4 3 2

Source: Center for American Women and Politics, 2015. http://cawp.rutgers.edu/ state_fact_sheets/az

State # of U.S. % of U.S.

Senators House Reps U.S. 20 19.3% SD 0 100.0% WY 0 100.0% HI 1 50.0% ME 1 50.0% NH 2 50.0% CT 0 40.0% CA 2 35.8% AZ 0 33.3% NM 0 33.3% WA 2 30.0% NY 1 29.6% AL 0 28.6% FL 0 25.9% KS 0 25.0% NV 0 25.0% UT 0 25.0% MO 1 25.0% NC 0 23.1% IL 0 22.2% IN 0 22.2% TN 0 22.2% MA 1 22.2% MI 1 21.4% OR 0 20.0% OH 0 18.8% CO 0 14.3% MD 1 12.5%

State # of U.S. % of U.S.

Senators House Reps MN 1 12.5% WI 1 12.5% VA 0 9.1% NJ 0 8.3% TX 0 8.3% AR 0 0.0% DE 0 0.0% GA 0 0.0% ID 0 0.0% KY 0 0.0% LA 0 0.0% MS 0 0.0% MT 0 0.0% OK 0 0.0% PA 0 0.0% RI 0 0.0% SC 0 0.0% VT 0 0.0% AK 1 0.0% IA 1 0.0% NE 1 0.0% ND 1 0.0% WV 1 0.0% Source: IWPR compilation of data from Center for American Women and Politics 2015

57

58 appendices APPENDIX B8 Women National Legislators Rank by Year, 2016 Source: Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers

State SENATE State Rank D R I**

Total Women/ Total Senate

AL 46 3 0 1 4/35 AK* 11 1 4 — 5/20 AZ 3 6 7 — 13/30 AR 36 3 4 — 7/35 CA* 21 8 4 — 12/40 CO 1 8 4 — 12/35 CT 16 8 1 — 9/36 DE* 28 5 1 — 6/21 FL* 24 6 6 — 12/40 GA 27 8 2 — 10/56 HI 14 8 0 — 8/25 ID 17 4 6 — 10/35 IL 6 12 4 — 16/59 IN 35 3 6 — 9/50 IA 31 6 1 — 7/50 KS* 28 4 9 — 13/4 0 KY 42 2 2 — 4/38 LA 45 3 2 — 5/39 ME 13 6 3 — 9/35 MD 7 10 2 — 12/47 MA* 24 12 0 — 12/40 MI 34 1 3 — 4/38 MN 5 15 8 — 23/67 MS 49 4 5 — 9/52 MO 26 5 1 — 6/34 MT 9 12 6 — 18/50 NE 32 — — 11 11/49 NV 8 2 2 — 4/21 NH 15 4 4 — 8/24 NJ* 11 8 3 — 11/40 NM 19 4 3 — 7/42 NY 20 7 5 — 12/63 NC 30 7 6 — 13/50 ND 39 4 4 — 8/47 OH* 21 4 3 — 7/33 OK* 47 3 3 — 6/48 OR 10 6 2 — 8/30 PA 40 4 5 — 9/50 RI 18 9 1 — 10/38 SC* 47 1 1 — 2/46 SD 33 1 6 — 7/35 TN 41 2 4 — 6/33 TX 37 2 5 — 7/31 UT 43 3 3 — 6/29 VT 2 7 2 — 9/30 VA 38 7 2 — 9/40 WA 4 10 8 — 18/49 WV 44 0 2 — 2/34 WI* 21 7 4 — 11/33 WY 50 1 0 — 1/30

265 169 12 446/1,972

D

HOUSE R I**

Total Women/ Total House

11 5 — 16/105 3 10 — 13/40 11 8 — 19/60 6 14 — 20/100 11 8 — 19/80 20 10 — 30/65 24 19 — 43/151 7 2 — 9/41 13 15 — 28/120 29 19 — 48/180 10 4 — 14/51 7 12 — 19/70 32 10 42/118 12 10 22/100 21 6 27/100 10 17 27/125 10 8 18/100 8 8 16/105 30 16 46/151 37 11 48/141 29 9 38/160 17 10 27/110 26 18 44/134 10 5 15/122 19 24 43/163 21 8 29/100 - - 11/49 9 7 16/42 69 45 114/400 18 7 25/80 13 10 23/70 38 5 1 44/150 14 12 26/120 11 8 19/94 13 14 27/99 5 10 15/101 16 4 20/60 15 23 38/203 18 3 21/75 12 10 22/124 4 11 15/70 7 9 16/99 16 13 29/150 7 3 10/75 44 15 6 65/150 14 4 18/100 19 13 32/98 6 12 18/100 14 9 23/99 3 8 11/60 821 539 7 1,368/5,411

Total Women/ Total Legis.

20/140 18/60 32/90 27/135 31/120 42/100 52/187 15/62 40/160 58/236 22/76 29/105 58/177 31/150 34/150 40/165 22/138 21/144 55/186 60/188 50/200 31/148 67/201 24/174 49/197 47/150 11/49 20/63 122/424 36/120 30/112 56/213 39/170 27/141 34/132 21/149 28/90 47/253 31/113 24/170 22/105 22/132 36/181 16/104 74/180 27/140 50/147 20/134 34/132 12/90 1,814/7,383

%Women Overall 14.3 30 35.6 20 25.8 42 27.8 24.2 25 24.6 28.9 27.6 32.8 20.7 22.7 24.2 15.9 14.6 29.6 31.9 25 20.9 33.3 13.8 24.9 31.3 22.4 31.7 28.8 30 26.8 26.3 22.9 19.1 25.8 14.1 31.1 18.6 27.4 14.1 21 16.7 19.9 15.4 41.1 19.3 34 14.9 25.8 13.3 24.6

APPENDIX B10 Reported Female Voting and Registration, U.S., 2014 State

Total Total Citizen Total pop. pop. reg.

% reg.

(Total)

% reg.

Total % voted % voted (Citizen) voted (Total) (Citizen)

U.S. 124,237 114,642 76,019 61.2 66.3 49,243 39.6 AL 1,922 1,877 1,303 67.8 69.4 820 42.6 AK 257 247 168 65.4 68.0 127 49.6 AZ 2,571 2,264 1,430 55.6 63.1 961 37.4 AR 1,131 1,064 700 61.9 65.8 434 38.3 CA 14,874 12,645 7,491 50.4 59.2 4,708 31.7 CO 2,030 1,883 1,366 67.3 72.5 1,152 56.8 CT 1,450 1,343 903 62.3 67.2 607 41.9 DE 375 350 236 62.8 67.3 160 42.7 FL 8,079 7,327 4,683 58.0 63.9 3,380 41.8 GA 3,848 3,616 2,347 61.0 64.9 1,622 42.2 HI 533 481 247 46.4 51.4 202 38.0 ID 597 569 359 60.1 63.1 248 41.6 IL 5,042 4,712 3,142 62.3 66.7 2,004 39.7 IN 2,556 2,449 1,622 63.5 66.2 850 33.3 IA 1,182 1,155 829 70.2 71.8 634 53.7 KS 1,088 1,037 718 66.0 69.2 509 46.8 KY 1,725 1,675 1,207 70.0 72.1 770 44.6 LA 1,805 1,759 1,290 71.5 73.4 908 50.3 ME 549 541 426 77.6 78.7 340 61.9 MD 2,407 2,201 1,617 67.2 73.5 1,090 45.3 MA 2,775 2,574 1,765 63.6 68.6 1,223 44.1 MI 3,961 3,791 2,762 69.7 72.9 1,864 47.1 MN 2,097 2,009 1,476 70.4 73.5 1,073 51.2 MS 1,154 1,135 888 77.0 78.3 493 42.8 MO 2,333 2,285 1,680 72.0 73.5 850 36.4 MT 396 393 257 64.8 65.4 201 50.7 NE 712 671 459 64.4 68.3 293 41.1 NV 1,073 934 564 52.5 60.4 345 32.2 NH 535 517 363 67.8 70.1 263 49.2 NJ 3,543 3,084 2,112 59.6 68.5 1,182 33.4

43.0 43.7 51.5 42.5 40.8 37.2 61.2 45.2 45.7 46.1 44.9 42.1 43.6 42.5 34.7 54.9 49.1 46.0 51.7 62.8 49.6 47.5 49.2 53.4 43.5 37.2 51.1 43.6 37.0 50.8 38.3

State

Total Total Citizen Total pop. pop. reg.

% reg.

(Total)

% reg.

Total % voted % voted (Citizen) voted (Total) (Citizen)

NM 797 740 486 61.0 65.6 342 42.9 NY 7,980 7,150 4,399 55.1 61.5 2,548 31.9 NC 3,902 3,654 2,601 66.7 71.2 1,742 44.6 ND 276 268 183 66.3 68.5 143 51.8 OH 4,575 4,428 3,018 66.0 68.2 1,762 38.5 OK 1,457 1,394 890 61.1 63.9 502 34.4 OR 1,566 1,475 1,058 67.6 71.7 852 54.4 PA 5,145 4,940 3,276 63.7 66.3 2,035 39.6 RI 432 403 255 59.2 63.4 177 41.0 SC 1,937 1,891 1,325 68.4 70.1 815 42.0 SD 317 314 212 67.0 67.7 141 44.5 TN 2,609 2,539 1,712 65.6 67.4 970 37.2 TX 9,941 8,767 5,340 53.7 60.9 3,236 32.5 UT 1,016 969 562 55.4 58.0 364 35.8 VT 253 248 172 67.9 69.2 112 44.3 VA 3,246 3,046 2,032 62.6 66.7 1,253 38.6 WA 2,717 2,445 1,739 64.0 71.1 1,265 46.5 WV 744 738 465 62.5 63.1 248 33.3 WS 2,220 2,173 1,572 70.8 72.4 1,203 54.2 WY 217 212 124 56.9 58.4 87 40.2

46.2 35.6 47.7 53.5 39.8 36.0 57.8 41.2 43.9 43.1 45.0 38.2 36.9 37.6 45.1 41.1 51.7 33.6 55.4 41.2

Note: Federal surveys now give respondents the option of reporting more than one race.

Therefore, two basic ways of defining a race group are possible. A group such as Asian may be defined as those who reported Asian and no other race (the race-alone or single-race concept) or as those who reported Asian regardless of whether they also reported another race (the race-alone-or-in-combination concept). Unless labeled “non-Hispanic,” the racealone or race-alone-or-in-combination categories can include individuals of Hispanic-origin; A dash ‘-’ represents zero or rounds to zero; The symbol (B) means that the base is less than 75,000 and therefore too small to show the derived measure.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November 2014; Voting & Registration 2014:

59

60 appendices

APPENDIX C1 Percentage of Adult Women Reporting Fair or Poor Health Status by Race/Ethnicity, 2012-2014 State All Non-Hisp Non-Hisp. Hisp.

Asian Native Am. Other White Black U.S.1 19% 16% WV 26% 26% AL 25% 24% AR 25% 23% KY 25% 25% MS 25% 22% LA 24% 21% TN 24% 24% NM 22% 17% FL 21% 17% SC 21% 18% GA 20% 18% IN 20% 19% OK 20% 19% TX 20% 16% CA 19% 13% MS 19% 18% NV 19% 17% NC 19% 17% OH 19% 17% AZ 18% 15% IL 18% 15% NY 18% 13% PA 18% 16% DE 17% 15% MI 17% 16% NJ 17% 14% OR 17% 16% RI 17% 14% VA 17% 16%

24% 26% 29% 28% 26% 29% 29% 25% 24% 23% 25% 22% 26% 22% 26% 23% 23% 28% 21% 26% 25% 26% 23% 25% 22% 25% 22% NSD 21% 20%

28% 10% NSD NSD 17% NSD 29% NSD 18% NSD NSD NSD 13% NSD NSD NSD 27% NSD 28% NSD 20% NSD 27% NSD 20% NSD 25% NSD 25% NSD 31% 10% 28% NSD 25% NSD 32% NSD 24% NSD 25% NSD 28% NSD 30% 16% 26% NSD 23% NSD 26% NSD 32% 7% 26% NSD 33% NSD 22% NSD

28% NSD 36% NSD 39% NSD NSD NSD 21% 29% NSD NSD NSD 22% NSD 30% NSD NSD 30% NSD 22% NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD

Rank

21% NSD 28% 38% 38% NSD 27% NSD 22% 23% 27% 21% 25% 26% 16% 19% 32% 16% 21% 20% 22% NSD NSD 25% 24% 22% 17% 22% 21% 21%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

State All Non-Hisp Non-Hisp.

White Black KS 16% 15% WA 16% 15% AK 15% 13% CT 15% 12% HI 15% 11% ME 15% 15% MD 15% 14% MT 15% 15% WS 15% 14% WY 15% 14% CO 14% 11% ID 14% 13% IA 14% 13% MA 14% 12% NE 14% 12% ND 14% 13% UT 14% 12% NH 13% 13% SD 13% 12% MN 12% 11% VT 12% 11%

26% 18% NSD 20% NSD NSD 17% NSD 32% NSD 24% NSD 27% 18% 27% NSD NSD NSD NSD 20% NSD

Hisp.

Asian

Native Am. Other

25% 28% NSD 28% 18% NSD 24% 18% NSD 22% 25% 26% 22% 30% 24% NSD 27% NSD NSD 25% NSD

NSD 12% NSD NSD 15% NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD

30% 30% 21% NSD NSD NSD NSD 26% 32% NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD 27% 24% NSD NSD 22% 26% NSD

Rank

22% 17% 15% 22% 19% NSD 20% 18% NSD NSD 18% NSD NSD 20% 27% NSD 20% 26% NSD 16% NSD

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Timeframe: 2012-2014. Notes: Data based on the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), an ongoing, state-based, random-digit-dialed telephone survey of noninstitutionalized civilian adults aged 18 years and older. For more information about BRFSS, go to http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/index.html.

Sources: Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 2012-2014 Survey Results.

Three-year merged dataset used to ensure adequate sample sizes for statistical analysis.

Definitions: NSD: Not sufficient data. 1 US totals exclude data from the territories

APPENDIX C2

APPENDIX C3

Female Adults Reporting Poor Mental Health Status, 2012

Female Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Programs as a Percent of All Admissions, 2010

State All Non-Hisp. Non-Hisp. Hisp. Rank White Black U.S. 39% 39% UT 45% 46% OR 44% 44% AL 43% 43% AR 43% 42% ID 43% 42% IL 43% 41% IN 42% 43% KY 42% 41% MI 42% 42% WA 42% 43% CA 41% 42% CO 41% 41% ME 41% 41% NV 40% 41% NY 40% 39% OH 40% 39% PA 40% 39% SC 40% 41% VT 40% 40% WI 40% 38% AK 39% 39% AZ 39% 37% CT 39% 40% FL 39% 37% LA 39% 39% MA 39% 39%

40% 39% NSD 40% 1 NSD 43% 2 43% 40% 3 46% 42% 4 NSD 46% 5 45% 47% 6 38% 40% 7 43% 38% 8 42% 50% 9 44% 40% 10 43% 41% 11 42% 37% 12 NSD NSD 13 44% 35% 14 42% 44% 15 41% 48% 16 43% 48% 17 39% 38% 18 NSD NSD 19 51% 52% 20 NSD 45% 21 42% 42% 22 35% 37% 23 41% 41% 24 40% 45% 25 37% 44% 26

OK 39% 38% 44% 33% 27

State All Non-Hisp. Non-Hisp. Hisp. Rank White Black RI 39% 39% GA 38% 39% MD 38% 39% MS 38% 36% MT 38% 37% NH 38% 38% NM 38% 38% WV 38% 38% MO 37% 37% ND 37% 37% WY 37% 37% DE 36% 36% IA 36% 35% MN 36% 36% NE 36% 36% NC 35% 36% TN 35% 35% TX 35% 34% VA 35% 35% KS 34% 34% NJ 34% 36% HI 32% 36% SD 31% 31%

36% 36% 28 37% 32% 29 36% 34% 30 41% NSD 31 NSD 36% 32 NSD 48% 33 37% 38% 34 37% NSD 35 33% 37% 36 NSD NSD 37 NSD 40% 38 37% 34% 39 47% 34% 40 40% 37% 41 37% 28% 42 34% 31% 43 36% NSD 44 40% 35% 45 35% 29% 46 36% 30% 47 33% 34% 48 NSD 43% 49 NSD 37% 50

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2012-2014, http://kff. org/other/state-indicator/percent-of-women-reportingpoor-mental-health-by-raceethnicity/# Note: Insignificant data was reported for Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Other

State Percent Rank U.S. OK ID KY FL TX WV AZ AK OH ND MI WA CA VT MS ME OR NH IN HI IL NV AR MN KS

34.7 42.3 42.2 41.3 40.8 40.4 40.2 39.4 38.9 38.3 38.1 37.8 37.3 37.1 37 36.5 36.1 35.8 35.6 35.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.3 33.3 33.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TN VA LA

33.2 32.9 32.5

26 27 28

State Percent Rank MD NJ NM WY AL SC MO PA MT NC MA RI UT WI DE CT NE SD CO NY GA

32.4 29 32.2 31 32 32 32 33 31.7 34 31.7 35 31.5 36 31.5 37 31.4 38 30.9 39 30.8 40 29.8 41 29.8 42 29.2 43 28.6 44 28.2 45 28 46 27.9 47 26.8 48 24.9 49 — 50

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration, 2010 “Treatment Episode Data Set” (http://wwwdasis.samhsa. gov/webt/NewMapv1.htm); NR = Not Reported

61

62 appendices

APPENDIX C4

APPENDIX C5

Winnable Battle Risk Factors and Health Indicators— Suicide Death Rate* by State

Health Insurance Coverage of Women in US ages 19-64

State Percent Rank (by 100,000)

State Percent Rank

(by 100,000)

U.S. 5.8 MT 11.3 1 UT 10.3 2 ID 10.1 3 OK 9.3 4 NM 9.2 5 CO 8.8 6 AZ 8.6 7 WY 8.6 8 NV 8.3 9 NH 8.2 10 WV 8.2 11 OR 8.0 12 AK 7.9 13 SD 7.6 14

AL 5.7 30 IN 5.7 31 MI 5.7 32 OH 5.7 33 VA 5.7 34 GA 5.6 35 PA 5.6 36 HI 5.4 37 NE 5.4 38 RI 5.4 39 TX 5.4 40 IA 5.3 41 DE 5.2 42 MS 5.2 43 CT 5.1 44

AR 7.2 15 WA 7.2 16 LA 7.1 17 NC 7.0 18 VT 7.0 19 ME 6.7 20 SC 6.7 21 KS 6.6 22 ND 6.6 23 FL 6.3 24 KY 6.3 25 MO 6.3 26 MN 5.9 27 WI 5.9 28 TN 5.8 29

CA 4.8 45 IL 4.2 46 MD 4.2 47 NJ 4.1 48 NY 4.0 49 MA 3.3 50 http://sortablestats.cdc.gov/#/ indicator; CDC Winnable Battles Sortable Stats Indicator View; Ageadjusted deaths due to suicide/ intentional self-harm (per 100,000 population) GENERATED DATE: 8/8/2016; DATA SOURCE: National Vital Statistics System * Deaths per 100,000

State Emp. Non- Medic- Other Unins. Rank Group aid U.S. 59% 8% 16% 4% 13% TX 56% 7% 10% 4% 22% 1 GA 56% 7% 10% 6% 20% 2 LA 56% 6% 15% 4% 19% 3 FL 50% 11% 15% 6% 18% 4 OK 57% 6% 13% 6% 18% 5 MS 51% 7% 18% 7% 17% 6 SC 55% 6% 17% 5% 17% 7 MT 60% 11% 8% 6% 16% 8 AK 58% 5% 16% 6% 15% 9 AZ 54% 6% 22% N/A 15% 10 NV 56% 6% 16% 7% 15% 11 NC 57% 8% 13% 6% 15% 12 AL 57% 8% 13% 7% 14% 13 AR 52% 11% 16% 8% 14% 14 ID 64% 10% 10% 3% 14% 15 IN 60% 7% 15% 4% 14% 16 NE 63% 9% 10% 5% 14% 17 NJ 63% 5% 14% 4% 14% 18 NM 49% 6% 25% 5% 14% 19 UT 65% 9% 9% 3% 14% 20 CA 53% 9% 22% 4% 13% 21 CO 54% 9% 18% 7% 13% 22 KS 63% 8% 10% 5% 13% 23 MO 64% 7% 11% 5% 13% 24 VA 63% 9% 7% 9% 13% 25 WY 67% 8% 9% 4% 13% 26

State Emp. Non- Medic- Other Unins. Rank Group aid ME 58% 7% 19% 4% 12% 27 TN 60% 8% 14% 7% 12% 28 IL 63% 7% 16% 3% 11% 29 ND 69% 9% 7% 4% 11% 30 PA 64% 9% 14% 2% 11% 31 SD 66% 9% 9% 4% 11% 32 WA 59% 9% 17% 4% 11% 33 OR 56% 11% 20% 4% 10% 34 NY 59% 7% 23% 2% 9% 35 OH 63% 5% 19% 4% 9% 36 WI 66% 8% 15% 2% 9% 37 CT 67% 8% 14% 3% 8% 38 KY 56% 9% 23% 5% 8% 39 MI 62% 7% 19% 3% 8% 40 NH 71% 7% 10% 4% 8% 41 WV 54% 5% 28% 5% 8% 42 DE 64% 5% 18% 6% 7% 43 HI 65% 4% 15% 9% 7% 44 IA 69% 8% 13% 3% 7% 45 MD 69% 7% 13% 4% 7% 46 MN 66% 8% 15% 3% 7% 47 VI 61% 9% 20% 4% 6% 48 MA 63% 6% 25% 2% 5% 49 RI 64% 13% 16% 3% 5% 50 Kaiser Family Foundation, 2014 http://kff.org/other/ state-indicator/nonelderly-adult-women/

APPENDIX C6

APPENDIX C9

Health Insurance Coverage (Employer Insured) of Women in US ages 19-64

Rate of Legal Abortions (per 1,000) Ages 15-44 Years by State of Occurrence, 2012

State Emp. Non- Medic- Other Unins. Rank Group aid U.S. 59% 13% 8% 16% 4% NH 71% 8% 7% 10% 4% 1 ND 69% 11% 9% 7% 4% 2 IA 69% 7% 8% 13% 3% 3 MD 69% 7% 7% 13% 4% 4 WY 67% 13% 8% 9% 4% 5 CT 67% 8% 8% 14% 3% 6 SD 66% 11% 9% 9% 4% 7 WI 66% 9% 8% 15% 2% 8 MN 66% 7% 8% 15% 3% 9 UT 65% 14% 9% 9% 3% 10 HI 65% 7% 4% 15% 9% 11 ID 64% 14% 10% 10% 3% 12 MS 64% 13% 7% 11% 5% 13 PA 64% 11% 9% 14% 2% 14 DE 64% 7% 5% 18% 6% 15 RI 64% 5% 13% 16% 3% 16 NE 63% 14% 9% 10% 5% 17 NJ 63% 14% 5% 14% 4% 18 KS 63% 13% 8% 10% 5% 19 VA 63% 13% 9% 7% 9% 20 IL 63% 11% 7% 16% 3% 21 OH 63% 9% 5% 19% 4% 22 MA 63% 5% 6% 25% 2% 23 MI 62% 8% 7% 19% 3% 24 VT 61% 6% 9% 20% 4% 25 MT 60% 16% 11% 8% 6% 26

State Emp. Non- Medic- Other Unins. Rank Group aid IN 60% 14% 7% 15% 4% 27 TN 60% 12% 8% 14% 7% 28 WA 59% 11% 9% 17% 4% 29 NY 59% 9% 7% 23% 2% 30 AK 58% 15% 5% 16% 6% 31 ME 58% 12% 7% 19% 4% 32 OK 57% 18% 6% 13% 6% 33 NC 57% 15% 8% 13% 6% 34 AL 57% 14% 8% 13% 7% 35 TX 56% 22% 7% 10% 4% 36 GA 56% 20% 7% 10% 6% 37 LA 56% 19% 6% 15% 4% 38 NV 56% 15% 6% 16% 7% 39 OR 56% 10% 11% 20% 4% 40 KY 56% 8% 9% 23% 5% 41 SC 55% 17% 6% 17% 5% 42 AZ 54% 15% 6% 22% — 43 CO 54% 13% 9% 18% 7% 44 WV 54% 8% 5% 28% 5% 45 CA 53% 13% 9% 22% 4% 46 AR 52% 14% 11% 16% 8% 47 MS 51% 17% 7% 18% 7% 48 FL 50% 18% 11% 15% 6% 49 NM 49% 14% 6% 25% 5% 50 Kaiser Family Foundation, 2014 http://kff.org/other/ state-indicator/nonelderly-adult-women/

State Rate Rank

State Rate Rank

U.S. N/A NY 25.8 1 DE 21.3 2 FL 21.1 3 CT 17.4 4 RI 16.8 5 IL 16.5 6 GA 15 7 MA 14.8 8 PA 14.2 9 VA 13.7 10 KS 13.4 11 WA 13.4 12 NJ 13.3 13 NV 13 14 TX 12.5 15

NM 8.8 31 IA 8 32 OK 6.9 33 IN 6.8 34 AR 6.6 35 SC 6.5 36 NE 6.4 37 WI 6.4 38 WV 5.4 39 UT 5.3 40 MO 4.8 41 ID 4.7 42 KY 4.5 43 ME 4.2 44 SD 4.1 45 MS 3.6 46

NC 12.4 16 TN 12.4 17 MI 12.2 18 OR 11.8 19 OH 11.5 20 MT 11.2 21 AK 11.1 22 VT 10.9 23 HI 10.7 24 AZ 10.4 25 MN 10.2 26 LA 9.9 27 ND 9.8 28 AL 9.5 29 CO 9.5 30

CA NR 47 MD NR 48 NH NR 49 WY NR 50 Notes: See http://kff.org/ womens-health-policy/ state-indicator/abortionrate/?state=AZ for notes NR: Data not reported. State did not report; because numbers for this state are available only from other states where residents obtained abortions, meaningful figures cannot be presented

63

64 appendices

APPENDIX C7 Percentage of Women with Health Insurance by Race/Ethnicity and State State White Hispanic Black

Asian / Pacific Isl.

Native Am.

Other Race or 2+Races

All

Rank*

U.S. 86.60% 63.30% 78.50% 82.00% 67.40% 80.70% 81.30% MA 96.80% 93.10% 92.00% 95.70% 97.20% 91.60% 96.00% 1 VT 93.80% 93.50% 87.30% 88.10% 94.00% 77.10% 93.40% 2 HI 89.80% 91.90% 92.60% 91.90% 90.20% 92.40% 91.50% 3 MN 93.00% 64.20% 81.40% 86.70% 76.80% 85.70% 90.60% 4 CT 92.70% 76.80% 84.80% 89.00% 80.30% 85.40% 89.30% 5 WI 91.50% 70.70% 81.90% 82.10% 79.40% 84.30% 89.30% 6 DE 91.50% 73.20% 89.20% 83.40% 89.60% 84.40% 89.20% 7 IA 90.30% 71.20% 81.20% 86.90% 69.20% 84.50% 89.00% 8 MD 92.60% 61.60% 87.70% 84.50% 88.50% 89.00% 88.00% 9 PA 89.80% 75.50% 82.50% 83.00% 83.80% 84.50% 87.90% 10 NY 91.80% 76.70% 86.20% 81.90% 80.80% 83.60% 87.20% 11 ND 89.40% 65.70% 80.80% 91.10% 63.00% 77.70% 87.20% 12 MA 87.30% 79.80% 88.50% 77.30% 86.90% 83.10% 87.10% 13 RI 90.40% 69.60% 79.20% 81.40% 66.20% 88.80% 86.80% 14 NH 87.10% 76.20% 74.50% 83.00% 84.80% 74.80% 86.40% 15 OH 86.80% 72.70% 80.40% 84.90% 82.50% 80.80% 85.50% 16 MI 87.00% 74.60% 80.30% 85.40% 78.30% 81.80% 85.40% 17 NE 88.70% 62.10% 73.20% 83.00% 50.30% 77.50% 85.20% 18 VA 89.00% 63.10% 80.40% 81.80% 75.60% 83.90% 84.60% 19 IL 89.50% 64.80% 79.20% 83.10% 80.70% 83.20% 83.90% 20 NJ 90.30% 65.80% 81.30% 83.50% 93.30% 77.00% 83.70% 21 SD 88.00% 52.70% 79.90% 85.40% 51.90% 74.00% 83.70% 22 KS 86.80% 58.50% 77.60% 83.40% 71.20% 75.00% 83.10% 23 CO 87.30% 67.00% 82.10% 83.00% 70.00% 85.60% 83.00% 24 UT 87.20% 54.10% 80.20% 81.70% 66.80% 81.10% 82.60% 25 WA 86.20% 57.00% 79.20% 82.60% 69.40% 83.70% 82.40% 26 MO 84.10% 60.80% 75.50% 82.00% 74.20% 78.40% 82.20% 27 TN 84.30% 47.90% 81.40% 78.70% 68.80% 79.50% 82.20% 28 IN 83.60% 62.20% 75.60% 79.00% 67.30% 75.80% 81.50% 29

State White Hispanic Black

Asian / Pacific Isl.

Native Am.

WY 82.60% 70.50% 87.70% 94.80% 51.80% AL 84.40% 45.50% 77.60% 83.50% 75.00% KY 82.00% 58.10% 76.40% 82.50% 62.90% OR 83.50% 61.00% 78.30% 81.90% 66.10% NC 84.30% 43.90% 76.60% 78.30% 71.80% AZ 86.00% 66.20% 79.20% 83.50% 68.60% SC 82.40% 50.10% 75.70% 76.70% 69.20% WV 79.20% 64.30% 72.00% 81.70% 75.90% ID 80.70% 58.30% 77.90% 83.40% 61.30% CA 87.10% 65.40% 82.20% 82.20% 76.00% MT 80.40% 69.70% 53.20% 73.60% 48.30% AK 82.10% 74.60% 94.20% 69.90% 57.60% AR 78.90% 54.50% 76.00% 72.20% 70.10% LA 81.30% 54.50% 70.30% 67.80% 70.00% MS 80.00% 50.20% 72.80% 62.60% 55.30% OK 81.30% 51.90% 73.70% 79.80% 63.20% GA 81.40% 45.30% 73.80% 70.40% 68.30% NM 85.30% 69.20% 81.50% 79.00% 52.70% NV 81.30% 58.80% 72.70% 77.90% 60.90% FL 80.60% 59.80% 70.30% 74.50% 68.00% TX 82.80% 54.70% 74.60% 75.80% 76.10%

Other Race or 2+Races

All

Rank*

83.90% 81.30% 78.50% 81.10% 72.20% 80.80% 78.70% 80.70% 76.60% 79.20% 82.50% 79.10% 76.00% 78.90% 81.40% 78.90% 78.50% 78.20% 82.30% 78.00% 61.00% 77.40% 72.30% 77.30% 75.30% 76.80% 78.80% 76.20% 76.40% 76.20% 67.60% 76.20% 70.60% 75.60% 80.70% 74.70% 74.00% 74.10% 74.70% 73.60% 74.90% 71.20%

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Note: Aged 18 to 64. Racial groups are non-Hispanic. Hispanics may be of any race or two or more races. Data are three-year averages (2011-2013). Source: IWPR analysis of American Community Survey microdata (Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Version 5.0). http://statusofwomendata.org/explorethe-data/poverty-opportunity/additional-state-data/percent-with-health-insurance-by-raceethnicityand-state-2013/ Cite: Hess, Cynthia, Jessica Milli, Jeff Hayes, and Ariane Hegewisch. 2015. The Status of Women in the States: 2015. Report, IWPR #400. Washington, DC: Institute for Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Policy Research. <http:// statusofwomendata.org/app/uploads/2015/02/Status-of-Women-in-the-States-2015-Full-NationalReport.pdf> * Ranked by all ethnicities and races

APPENDIX C8 Percent of Women Who Report Having No Personal Doctor/Health Care Provider, by Race/Ethnicity State All Rank Non-Hisp. Non-Hisp. Hisp. Am. Indian/

White Black AK Native U.S. 17% 13% 18% 34% 25% NV 28% 1 21% 30% 42% NSD TX 27% 2 16% 24% 42% NSD AK 26% 3 23% NSD 30% 32% NM 25% 4 18% NSD 28% 38% WY 23% 5 21% NSD 35% NSD AZ 22% 6 17% 21% 34% 37% CA 22% 7 13% 15% 35% NSD GA 22% 8 17% 23% 48% NSD UT 21% 9 18% NSD 37% 34% MT 21% 10 19% NSD 30% 33% ID 21% 11 18% NSD 39% NSD OK 20% 12 16% 25% 45% 24% FL 20% 13 15% 21% 31% NSD ND 19% 14 16% NSD NSD 40% WA 19% 15 16% NSD 40% 20% NC 19% 16 14% 19% 57% 19% LA 19% 17 16% 23% 37% NSD MS 19% 18 17% 22% NSD NSD AR 18% 19 15% 18% 51% NSD OR 18% 20 16% NSD 32% NSD VA 18% 21 15% 19% 39% NSD WV 18% 22 17% NSD NSD NSD SD 17% 23 13% NSD NSD 44% MN 17% 24 15% 23% 40% 30% CO 17% 25 14% 21% 26% NSD SC 17% 26 14% 20% 39% NSD TN 17% 27 16% 19% NSD NSD

State All Rank Non-Hisp. Non-Hisp. Hisp. Am. Indian/

White Black AK Native AL 16% 28 14% 20% NSD NSD MO 16% 29 14% 19% NSD NSD KS 15% 30 12% 20% 41% NSD IN 14% 31 12% 20% 35% NSD KY 14% 32 13% 19% NSD NSD MD 14% 33 10% 11% 43% NSD NJ 14% 34 9% 13% 28% NSD OH 14% 35 12% 23% 24% NSD NE 13% 36 11% 14% 32% 28% NY 13% 37 10% 10% 21% NSD IL 12% 38 9% 13% 24% NSD IA 12% 39 10% NSD 36% NSD WI 12% 40 10% 15% 32% NSD CT 11% 41 7% 17% 26% NSD HI 11% 42 14% NSD 13% NSD MI 11% 43 10% 15% 15% NSD RI 11% 44 7% 15% 26% NSD PA 10% 45 8% 12% 22% NSD DE 9% 46 7% 10% 21% NSD NH 9% 47 9% NSD NSD NSD VT 9% 48 8% NSD NSD NSD MA 8% 49 6% 9% 15% NSD ME 7% 50 7% NSD NSD NSD Source: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2014, retrieved from http://kff.org/ disparities-policy/state-indicator/no-personal-doctor/# Note: Insufficient comparison data was provided for Asian, Native HIan and Pacific Islanders, and ‘Other’ categories

65

66 appendices

APPENDIX C10

APPENDIX C11

APPENDIX C12

Teen Birth Rate (per 1,000) Population Ages 15-19

Births By Mother’s Age Group, Race/Ethnicity, and Number of Prenatal Visits, AZ, 2013

Breast Cancer Incidence Rate per 100,000 Women

State Rate

per 1,000

Rank

U.S. 24.2 AR 39.5 1 OK 38.5 2 MS 38.0 3 NM 37.8 4 TX 37.8 5 WV 36.6 6 LA 35.8 7 KY 35.3 8 TN 33.0 9 AL 32.0 10 WY 30.1 11 AZ 29.9 12 NV 28.5 13 SC 28.5 14 GA 28.4 15 IN 28.0 16 AK 27.8 17 KS 27.6 18 MO 27.2 19 MT 26.4 20 SD 26.2 21 NC 25.9 22 OH 25.1 23 ND 23.9 24 ID 23.2 25 HI 23.1 26 IL 22.8 27

State Rate

per 1,000

Rank

FL 22.5 28 NE 22.2 29 CA 21.1 30 MI 21.1 31 DE 20.7 32 CO 20.3 33 OR 20.0 34 IA 19.8 35 UT 19.4 36 PA 19.3 37 WA 19.1 38 VA 18.4 39 WI 18.0 40 MD 17.8 41 ME 16.5 42 NY 16.1 43 RI 15.8 44 MN 15.5 45 VT 14.2 46 NJ 13.1 47 CT 11.5 48 NH 11.0 49 MA 10.6 50 Source: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2014, retrieved from http://kff.org/other/ state-indicator/teen-birthrate-per-1000/

Racial/Ethnic Group All groups

White non-Hispanic

Hispanic or Latino

Black or African American

American Indian/AK Native

Asian or Pacific Islander

Prenatal Visit

Percent

0-8 visits >9 visits 0-8 visits >9 visits 0-8 visits >9 visits 0-8 visits >9 visits 0-8 visits >9 visits 0-8 visits >9 visits

19% 81% 13% 87% 23% 77% 21% 79% 36% 64% 14% 86%

Source: Arizona Vital Statistics, 2013, http://www.azdhs.gov/ plan/report/ahs/ahs2013/index.php?pg=state

State Rate per 100,000

Rank

State Rate per 100,000

Rank

U.S. 122.2 SD 141.4 1 HI 139.8 2 RI 138.2 3 WA 137.2 4 MA 136.8 5 CT 136.4 6 NH 132.8 7 NJ 129.9 8 VT 129.0 9 PA 128.2 10 MN 128.0 11 SC 126.9 12 NY 126.4 13 IL 126.0 14

AK 121.6 29 LA 121.4 30 CA 121 31 TN 120.8 32 OH 120.2 33 ME 120 34 AL 119.8 35 IN 118.6 36 NE 118.2 37 MS 116.8 38 UT 115.8 39 OK 115.7 40 WV 115.2 41 IA 114.5 42 FL 114.1 43

WI 125.4 15 OR 125.3 16 NC 125.2 17 MD 124.9 18 KS 124.7 19 MO 124.6 20 MI 124.4 21 DE 123.7 22 VA 123.7 23 KY 123.6 24 ND 123.6 25 ID 123.4 26 CO 122.6 27 GA 122.5 28

MT 114.1 44 NM 113.9 45 TX 110.8 46 AR 109.2 47 AZ 107.2 48 WY 107.2 49 NV — 50 Source: 2012, Kaiser Family Foundation, http://kff.org/ other/state-indicator/breastcancer-rate/?currentTimefra me=0&sortModel=%7B%22co lId%22:%22Location%22,%22 sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

APPENDIX C13

APPENDIX C14

APPENDIX C15

Breast Cancer Deaths (per 100,000), U.S., 2012

Cervical Cancer Incidence Rate per 100,000 Women

Overweight and Obesity Rates for Female Adults

State Rate per 100,000

Rank

U.S. 21.3 MS 25.1 1 LA 24.2 2 MD 23.7 3 OK 23.5 4 AR 23.2 5 KY 23.2 6 IL 22.9 7 KS 22.9 8 AL 22.8 9 TN 22.8 10 OH 22.7 11 DE 22.6 12 NJ 22.6 13 MO 22.4 14 PA 22.4 15 SC 22.3 16 WV 22.3 17 MI 22.1 18 NV 22.1 19 IN 21.7 20 GA 21.6 21 NC 21.4 22 NE 21.2 23 VA 21.2 24 CA 21.1 25 TX 21.1 26

State Rate per 100,000

Rank

NY 20.7 27 FL 20.5 28 UT 20.5 29 WI 20.5 30 MT 20.4 31 CO 20.3 32 OR 20.3 33 IA 20.2 34 VT 19.4 35 MA 19.3 36 AZ 19.1 37 SD 19.1 38 CT 19 39 NH 19 40 MN 18 41 RI 18 42 WA 17.9 43 NM 17.8 44 AK 17.5 45 ME 17.2 46 ND 16.8 47 HI 16 48 ID 15.8 49 WY 15.5 50 Source: www.kff.org/other/ state-indicator/breastcancer-death-rate/#

State Rate per Rank 100,000

State Rate per Rank 100,000

U.S. 7.4 WV 9.6 1 MO 9.5 2 AL 9.4 3 KY 9.3 4 MS 9.3 5 AR 9.1 6 TX 9.0 7 HI 8.9 8 DE 8.4 9 LA 8.4 10 FL 8.3 11 TN 8.3 12 AK 8.1 13 OK 8.1 14 GA 7.9 15

CT NE ND WY ID KS NM OH VA MD WI MI OR SD WA CO

6.7 28 6.7 29 6.7 30 6.6 31 6.5 32 6.5 33 6.5 34 6.4 35 6.4 36 6.3 37 6.3 38 6.1 39 6.1 40 6.0 41 6.0 42 5.7 43

NY 7.7 16 PA 7.7 17 CA 7.6 18 RI 7.6 19 IN 7.5 20 NC 7.4 21 IA 7.1 22 NJ 7.1 23 IL 7.0 24 MT 6.9 25 SC 6.9 26 AZ 6.8 27

MN MA UT NH ME NV VT

5.4 44 4.9 45 4.8 46 4.4 47 4.3 48 N/A 49 NSD 50

Source: 2012, Kaiser Family Foundation http://kff.org/other/ state-indicator/cervical-cancerrate/ for notes and sources

State Percent Rank

State Percent Rank

U.S. 58% MS 66% 1 AR 65% 2 AL 65% 3 WV 63% 4 TN 63% 5 SC 63% 6 KY 63% 7 OK 63% 8 LA 62% 9 IN 62% 10 GA 61% 11 MI 61% 12 TX 61% 13 NC 60% 14 IL 60% 15 IA 60% 16 MD 60% 17 WI 60% 18 SD 60% 19 OH 60% 20 KS 59% 21 ME 59% 22 ND 59% 23 AK 59% 24 NE 59% 25 DE 58% 26 MO 58% 27 VA 58% 28 PA 58% 29 RI 58% 30

NM 57% 31 ID 57% 32 WY 57% 33 NV 56% 34 CT 56% 35 WA 55% 36 FL 55% 37 NY 55% 38 NJ 55% 39 AZ 54% 40 NH 54% 41 VT 54% 42 MT 53% 43 CA 53% 44 MN 52% 45 OR 52% 46 UT 52% 47 CO 49% 48 MA 49% 49 HI 46% 50 An adult who has a BMI between 25 and 29.9 is considered overweight. An adult who has a BMI of 30 or higher is considered obese.

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2013 http://kff. org/other/state-indicator/ adult-overweightobesityrate-by-gender/

67

68 appendices

APPENDIX C16

APPENDIX D1

Percent of Adult Women Who Have Ever Been Told by a Doctor that They Have Diabetes

Female and Male Educational Attainment

State Yes

Yes, Preg. No, Pre-Diab. Rank -Related or Borderline

U.S. 10% 2% WV 14% NSD MS 13% NSD AL 13% 1% KY 13% 2% TN 13% NSD AR 13% NSD SC 12% 2% OK 12% 2% FL 12% NSD GA 12% 3% NM 11% 1% OH 11% 2% LA 11% 2% MO 11% 3%

2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% NSD 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

NC 11% 1% DE 11% NSD PA 11% NSD TX 11% 2% KS 10% 2% IN 10% 2% VA 10% 3% CA 10% 3% IL 10% NSD MD 10% 3% MI 10% NSD NY 10% 2% HI 9% NSD

2% NSD 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% NSD 1% 1% 2% 7%

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

State Yes

Yes, Preg. No, Pre-Diab. Rank -Related or Borderline

AZ 9% 2% NJ 9% 3% CT 9% 2% OR 9% NSD NV 9% NSD IA 9% 2% ME 9% 1% WI 9% NSD AK 9% NSD NE 9% 2% SD 9% 2% MT 9% 2% NH 9% NSD RI 9% 2% MA 8% 3%

2% 1% 2% NSD NSD 2% 2% NSD 2% 1% 2% 1% NSD 2% 1%

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

WA 8% 2% ND 8% NSD ID 8% NSD MN 8% 4% WY 7% NSD CO 7% 1% VT 7% 2% UT 7% 2%

1% 1% NSD 1% NSD 2% NSD 1%

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Source: The Kaiser Family Foundation, 2014 http://kff. org/other/state-indicator/percent-of-adult-womenwho-have-ever-been-told-by-a-doctor-that-theyhave-diabetes/

UNITED STATES ARIZONA

Male Female Male Female Population 25 years+ 100,698,865 108,098,751 2,089,624 2,184,442 Less than 9th grade 6.0% 5.7% 6.4% 6.2% 9th to 12th grade, no diploma 8.4% 7.4% 8.4% 7.4% High school graduate (includes equivalency) 28.6% 27.6% 24.1% 25.0% Some college, no degree 20.8% 21.6% 25.1% 26.3% Associate degree 7.1% 8.8% 7.9% 8.9% Bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degree 18.0% 18.3% 17.5% 16.8% Graduate or professional degree 11.1% 10.7% 10.6% 9.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2013 3-Year American Community Survey, www. factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_13_3YR_ S1501&prodType=table

APPENDIX D2 Children In Poverty (100%) By Race And Ethnicity, 2014

Total Rank Non-Hisp. Hisp. Black or

White African Am. U.S. 22% 13% 32% 38% AL 30% 1 15% 34% S AK 29% 2 15% 26% 47% AZ 28% 3 17% 47% 45% AR 28% 4 13% 32% 48% CA 27% 5 15% 45% 43% CO 26% 6 13% 35% 35% CT 26% 7 19% 39% 46% DE 26% 8 13% 41% 39% FL 26% 9 23% 41% 46% GA 26% 10 18% 46% 45% HI 25% 11 11% 33% 32% ID 25% 12 23% S S IL 24% 13 14% 29% 38% IN 24% 14 13% 42% 37% IA 23% 15 11% 31% 36% KS 23% 16 16% 32% 47% KY 23% 17 14% 34% 32% LA 23% 18 16% 35% 48% ME 22% 19 16% 36% 45% MD 22% 20 13% 29% 38% MA 22% 21 16% 35% 43% MI 22% 22 17% 33% S MN 21% 23 16% 31% 41% MS 20% 24 11% 27% 43% MO 20% 25 11% 38% 24% MT 19% 26 15% 32% S NE 19% 27 17% S S NV 19% 28 15% S S

Asian/ Pac. Isl.

Am. Indian

13% 36% S 44% S S 5% S 13% S 10% S 12% 46% S S 12% S 27% S 15% S 12% 23% S S 12% S 12% 39% 11% 29% 14% S 22% 23% 10% S 19% S 9% S 12% 25% 12% S 13% S 13% S S S S S S S S 45%

Total Rank Non-Hisp. Hisp. Black or

White African Am. NH 19% 29 NJ 18% 30 NM 18% 31 NY 18% 32 NC 18% 33 ND 18% 34 OH 16% 35 OK 16% 36 OR 16% 37 PA 16% 38 RI 16% 39 SC 15% 40 SD 15% 41 TN 15% 42 TX 15% 43 UT 15% 44 VT 15% 45 VA 15% 46 WA 13% 47 WV 13% 48 WI 13% 49 WY 13% 50

12% 10% 12% 9% 12% 11% 7% 10% 8% 16% 10% 8% 6% 10% 12% 8% 9% 9% 7% 12% 8% 9%

39% S 32% S 30% 35% S 29% 30% S 22% 27% 33% 14% 26% 38% 29% S 16% S 31% S

40% 28% 35% S 35% 49% S S 28% S 32% 31% 31% S 45% 31% 45% S 20% S S S

Asian/ Pac. Isl. 12% S S S 13% 28% S 8% 6% S 7% 10% 5% 17% 14% 10% 19% S 9% S S S

Am. Indian S S S 57% 40% 33% 29% S S S S S S S S S 41% S S S S S

Data Provided by: National KIDS COUNT; http://datacenter.kidscount.org/ data/tables/8447-children-in-poverty-100-by-age-group-and-race-andethnicity#detailed/2/2-52/true/869/2757,4087,3654,3301,2322,2664|140/17080 “S”: Estimates suppressed when the confidence interval around the percentage is greater than or equal to 10 percentage points. Year(s): 2014 | Race Ethnicity: 6 selected | Age group: Total Under 18 | Data Type: Percent “N.A.”: Data not available

69

70 appendices

APPENDIX D3

APPENDIX D4

Children Living In Households That Were Food Insecure At Some Point During The Year, 2013

Young Children Not In Preschool, Ages 3-4, 2012-2014

State Percent Rank

State Percent Rank

State Percent Rank

State Percent Rank

U.S. 21% MS 29% 1 AR 28% 2 LA 28% 3 AL 27% 4 OK 27% 5 TX 27% 6 OR 26% 7 AZ 25% 8 KS 25% 9 KY 25% 10 NV 25% 11 ME 24% 12 OH 24% 13 TN 24% 14 GA 23% 15 NC 23% 16 WV 23% 17 FL 22% 18 IN 22% 19 NE 22% 20 NY 22% 21 SD 22% 22 HI 21% 23 NM 21% 24 WA 21% 25 CA 20% 26 CT 20% 27 MO 20% 28

CO 19% 29 DE 19% 30 MD 19% 31 MT 19% 32 RI 19% 33 SC 19% 34 WI 19% 35 AK 18% 36 IL 18% 37 UT 18% 38 ID 17% 39 IA 17% 40 PA 17% 41 VT 17% 42 WY 17% 43 MI 16% 44 NH 16% 45 NJ 16% 46 MA 15% 47 MN 15% 48 VA 15% 49 ND 12% 50

U.S. 53% ID 69% 1 NV 68% 2 AZ 65% 3 ND 63% 4 WV 63% 5 AK 61% 6 MT 61% 7 SD 61% 8 IN 60% 9 TN 60% 10 WA 60% 11 NM 59% 12 UT 59% 13 AL 58% 14 KY 58% 15

PA 53% 31 VA 53% 32 CA 52% 33 DE 52% 34 IA 52% 35 RI 52% 36 MD 51% 37 MS 51% 38 FL 50% 39 GA 50% 40 CO 49% 41 HI 49% 42 LA 49% 43 VT 49% 44 NH 47% 45 IL 46% 46

OR 58% 16 TX 58% 17 WY 58% 18 MO 57% 19 NE 57% 20 NC 57% 21 OK 57% 22 KS 56% 23 SC 56% 24 ME 55% 25 MN 55% 26 OH 55% 27 WI 55% 28 AR 53% 29 MI 53% 30

NY 42% 47 MA 41% 48 NJ 36% 49 CT 34% 50

http://datacenter.kidscount. org/data/tables/5201-childrenliving-in-households-thatwere-food-insecure-atsome-point-during-theyear#detailed/2/2-52/true/36/ any/11675

http://datacenter.kidscount. org/data/tables/9010young-children-not-inschool?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/false/1443/ any/17976 This indicator is included in the KIDS COUNT Child Well-Being Index. Read the KIDS COUNT Data Book to learn more: http:// datacenter.kidscount.org/ publications

APPENDIX D5

APPENDIX D11

Fourth Graders Who Scored Below Proficient Reading Level By Family Income, 2014

First Generation College Students

State

Eligible

Rank* Not eligible

U.S. 79% 48% CA 84% 1 52% MI 84% 2 60% AK 83% 3 57% AZ 83% 4 48% HI 83% 5 57% NM 83% 6 60% MD 82% 7 48% AL 81% 8 55% MS 81% 9 55% WI 81% 10 50% CT 80% 11 43% IL 80% 12 45% KS 80% 13 46% MN 80% 14 48% NV 80% 15 58% SD 80% 16 55% TX 80% 17 51% CO 79% 18 46% DE 79% 19 52% LA 79% 20 56% NJ 79% 21 43% NY 79% 22 47% SC 79% 23 47% TN 78% 24 50% VA 78% 25 42% GA 77% 26 45% IA 77% 27 51% ME 77% 28 52% NE 77% 29 45% ND 77% 30 56% OH 77% 31 48%

State

Eligible

Rank* Not eligible

OK 77% 32 52% OR 77% 33 48% WA 77% 34 42% AR 76% 35 52% ID 76% 36 51% MT 76% 37 51% PA 76% 38 45% RI 76% 39 46% MO 75% 40 50% NC 75% 41 41% WV 75% 42 56% NH 74% 43 46% UT 73% 44 52% IN 72% 45 48% WY 72% 46 51% FL 71% 47 45% KY 71% 48 43% MA 71% 49 35% VT 70% 50 45% http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/ tables/5125-fourth-graders-who-scoredbelow-proficient-reading-level-by-family-inco me?loc=1&loct=2#detailed/2/2-52/true/573,36 ,867,38/1171,1172/11558

Issue First-Generation College Students

College of Parent(s) with

Students a Bachelor’s or

Advanced Degree Students enrolled within 8 24% 68% years of high school grad.

Graduated college* Dropped out of college* Ethnicity

24% 43% Majority African Am. and Latino

Required remedial courses 55% Field of study Maj in voc.

or tech. fields

68% 20% Majority NHW 27% Science, math,engineering, architecture, humanities, arts, social sciences

Average number of 18 25 first-year credits earned First-year performance Overall performance Likely to repeat or withdraw from classes

2.5 GPA 2.6 GPA

2.8 GPA 2.9 GPA

12%

7%

Source: Chen, X. (2005). First Generation Students in Postsecondary Eduction: A Look at Their College Transcripts (NCES 2005-171). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. * Not included here are those still enrolled and those earning an associate degree or certificate

Data Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Available online at http://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/.

Updated November 2015. S – NAEP reporting standards not met. N.A. – Data not available. * Ranked by Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch

71

72 appendices

APPENDIX D6 Fourth Graders Who Scored Below Proficient Reading Level By Race 2014

Am. Asian/ Black or Hisp. Non-Hisp. Rank* Indian Pac. Isl. African Am. White

U.S. 78% 47% ME S S VT S 51% WV S S ND S S AL 67% S CA S S ID S S MI S S NM 90% S WA S S AZ 85% 53% MN 82% S NE S S OR 89% S PA 84% S SD S 51% MS S 52% NV S 48% NY S S UT 89% 77% WI S 42% CO 89% S IA 77% 66% KS S 41% RI S S MD S S OK S 56% SC S 44% CT 79% S DE S 50%

82% 79% 54% 79% S 70% 1 91% 83% 68% 2 86% S 64% 3 85% 84% 63% 4 83% 79% 63% 5 83% 77% 63% 6 83% 70% 63% 7 86% 81% 62% 8 S 83% 61% 9 84% 73% 61% 10 S 82% 60% 11 79% 85% 59% 12 S 83% 59% 13 85% 82% 59% 14 S 71% 59% 15 86% 81% 58% 16 86% 80% 58% 17 85% 80% 58% 18 85% 75% 58% 19 75% 72% 58% 20 84% 77% 57% 21 73% 82% 56% 22 89% 81% 56% 23 77% 77% 56% 24 78% 71% 56% 25 S S 55% 26 S 81% 55% 27 78% 78% 55% 28 S 73% 55% 29 86% 84% 54% 30

GA S S 85% 79% 54% 31 TX S 35% 85% 77% 54% 32 AR 86% 67% 84% 82% 53% 33

Am. Asian/ Black or Hisp. Non-Hisp. Rank*

Indian Pac. Isl. African Am. White IL S 44% KY S S NC S 75% OH 80% 41% HI S 49% MA S 50% MO S 37% NJ S 63% TN S 34% WY S S AK S 43% NH S 44% IN 81% 41% MT S 37% LA S 33% VA S 46% FL S 32%

S 72% 53% 34 78% 82% 52% 35 S 75% 52% 36 75% 83% 51% 37 83% 82% 51% 38 82% 81% 51% 39 80% 66% 51% 40 73% 80% 50% 41 83% 78% 50% 42 73% 80% 49% 43 82% 79% 49% 44 79% 78% 49% 45 77% 77% 49% 46 81% 68% 48% 47 78% 73% 46% 48 85% 78% 44% 49 75% 75% 42% 50

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/5126-fourth-graderswho-scored-below-proficient-reading-level-by-race?loc=4&loct=2#d etailed/2/2-52/true/573/10,168,9,12,107/11557 Definitions: Fourth grade public school students who scored below the proficient level in reading, as measured and defined by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), by race and Hispanic origin. For a more detailed description of achievement levels see: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/Reading/achieveall.asp.

Public schools include charter schools and exclude Bureau of Indian Education schools and Department of Defense Education Activity schools. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown for students whose race or Hispanic origin was not classified.

Data Source: Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

Available online at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/. Footnotes: Updated November 2015. S – NAEP reporting standards not met. N.A. – Data not available. * Ranked by White Non-Hispanic

APPENDIX D7 Eighth Grade Math Achievement Levels, 2015

ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL Below At or above Below At or above Rank * basic basic proficient proficient

U.S. 30% 70% AL 44% 56% LA 43% 57% MS 39% 61% NM 38% 62% WV 40% 60% CA 33% 67% FL 34% 66% NV 36% 64% SC 35% 65% AR 35% 65% GA 36% 64% OK 33% 67% KY 32% 68% MI 32% 68% TN 32% 68% DE 31% 69%

68% 83% 82% 79% 79% 78% 77% 75% 74% 74% 74% 73% 72% 72% 71% 71% 70%

32% 17% 18% 21% 21% 22% 23% 25% 26% 26% 26% 27% 28% 28% 29% 29% 30%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

NY 30% 70% 70% NC 31% 69% 69% HI 29% 71% 69% AK 29% 71% 68% MD 28% 72% 68% MO 28% 72% 68% AZ 25% 75% 68% CT 31% 69% 67% IL 24% 76% 67% PA 27% 73% 66% RI 25% 75% 66% CO 23% 77% 66% OR 29% 71% 65% WA 28% 72% 65% ID 25% 75% 65% OH 24% 76% 65%

30% 31% 31% 32% 32% 32% 32% 33% 33% 34% 34% 34% 35% 35% 35% 35%

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL

Below At or above Below At or above Rank * basic basic proficient proficient TX 22% 78% 65% IA 28% 72% 64% KS 28% 72% 64% ME 27% 73% 63% UT 24% 76% 63% VA 24% 76% 62% IN 24% 76% 62% NE 23% 77% 62% SD 26% 74% 61% WI 23% 77% 61% WY 21% 79% 61% MT 20% 80% 61% NJ 22% 78% 59% VT 21% 79% 58% ND 21% 79% 54% MA 16% 84% 54% MN 18% 82% 52% NH 19% 81% 49%

35% 36% 36% 37% 37% 38% 38% 38% 39% 39% 39% 39% 41% 42% 46% 46% 48% 51%

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Source: http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/5119-eighthgrade-math-achievement-levels?loc=4&loct=2#detailed/2/2-52/tr ue/573,36,867,38,18/1185,1186,1187,1188/11575 For a more detailed description of achievement levels see: http:// nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/Mathematics/achieveall.asp. Public schools include charter schools and exclude Bureau of Indian Education schools and Department of Defense Education Activity schools.

Data Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Available online at http://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard. Footnotes: Updated November 2015. S – NAEP reporting standards not met. N.A. – Data not available. * Ranked by percentage below proficient

73

74 appendices

APPENDIX D8 Eighth Graders Who Scored Below Proficient Math Achievement Level By Race, 2015

Non-Hisp. Non-Hisp. Hisp. Asian or Am. Indian/ Rank * White Black Pac. Isl. AK Native

U.S. 58% 88% 81% 42% 81% AL 79% 92% S S S 1 AK 77% 95% 89% S S 2 AZ 73% 93% 81% S S 3 AR 71% 92% 86% S 82% 4 CA 70% 88% 79% 42% S 5 CO 69% 90% 82% S S 6 CT 66% S 80% 70% S 7 DE 66% 95% 82% 30% S 8 FL 66% 90% 81% S S 9 GA 66% 91% 76% S S 10 HI 65% S 84% S 88% 11 ID 64% 89% 78% 49% S 12 IL 64% S S S S 13 IN 64% 89% 78% S S 14 IA 64% 92% 78% S S 15 KS 62% 87% 78% 41% S 16 KY 62% 92% 84% 52% S 17 LA 61% S 88% S S 18 MA 61% S 82% S 89% 19 MD 61% S 82% S 94% 20 MA 60% 88% 78% 41% S 21 MI 60% 85% 81% 48% S 22 MN 60% 89% 76% 37% S 23 MS 60% S 84% 49% S 24 MI 59% 87% 83% 31% S 25 MO 59% 87% 81% 32% S 26 NE 59% 92% 81% 60% S 27 NV 59% 86% 87% 51% S 28 NH 57% 86% 87% 44% S 29

Non-Hisp. Non-Hisp. Hisp. Asian or Am. Indian/ Rank * White Black Pac. Isl. AK Native

NJ 57% S 76% S 89% 30 NM 57% 84% 77% 40% 83% 31 NY 57% S 85% S 89% 32 NC 57% S S S S 33 ND 56% 83% 78% S 85% 34 OH 56% 92% 86% 32% S 35 OK 55% 83% 74% 75% 88% 36 OR 55% 90% 77% S S 37 PA 54% 88% 86% 42% S 38 RI 54% 87% 84% S S 39 SC 54% 88% 71% 30% S 40 SD 53% S 78% 31% S 41 TN 53% 87% 80% 38% 83% 42 TX 53% 93% 80% 56% 75% 43 UT 52% 84% 77% 33% S 44 VT 51% 85% 81% 41% S 45 VA 51% 86% 76% 32% S 46 WA 49% 81% 77% 38% 85% 47 WV 45% 80% 76% 17% S 48 WI 44% 86% 78% 52% 83% 49 WY 41% 78% 76% 27% S 50 http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/7665-eighth-graders-whoscored-below-proficient-math-achievement-level-by-race?loc=4&loct= 2#detailed/2/2-9,11-52/true/573/107,9,12,168,10/14819 Data Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Available online at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard.

Footnotes: Updated November 2015. S – NAEP reporting standards not met. N.A. – Data not available. * Rank = White

APPENDIX D9 Public High School Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR), 2012 PERCENT OF STUDENTS

Fem. Rank* Male Am. Ind./ Asian/ Hisp. Non-Hisp. Non-Hisp.

AK Native Pac. Isl. Black White U.S. 85 78 NE 95 1 91 VT 95 2 91 WI 94 3 90 ND 93 4 89 IA 92 5 87 KS 92 6 86 MN 91 7 86 PA 91 8 86 NH 90 9 84 VA 90 10 81 CT 89 11 83 MD 89 12 81 MA 89 13 85 MO 89 14 83 NJ 89 15 84 OH 89 16 84 ME 88 17 86 MT 88 18 84 IN 87 19 78 CA 86 20 78 CO 86 21 79 ID 86 22 82 KY 86 23 80 TN 86 24 81 IL 85 25 83 OR 85 26 77 SD 85 27 82

68 68 ≥90 76 62 59 64 48 79 65 82 ≥98 70 70 98 59 75 60 62 80 77 57 67 72 94 91 58 42

93 76 97 93 ≥98 ≥95 97 85 ≥95 82 91 88 92 87 92 70 ≥99 76 ≥99 86 96 92 95 74 96 85 98 69 98 92 ≥99 78 97 82 ≥98 97 87 96 ≥99 83 96 77 87 76 96 83 ≥99 89 94 - 98 79 87 78 ≥98 77

68 65 ≥98 63 ≥98 64 70 66 75 74 71 73 74 82 73 74 64 83 65 63 70 65 78 78 76 64 65 77

85 93 91 96 93 90 89 92 92 87 85 90 87 90 87 91 89 86 87 82 88 84 83 82 86 89 78 88

PERCENT OF STUDENTS

Fem. Rank* Male Am. Ind./ Asian/ Hisp. Non-Hisp. Non-Hisp.

AK Native Pac. Isl. Black White TX 85 28 80 97 94 80 73 84 WA 85 29 77 41 81 79 57 80 NC 83 30 76 74 88 78 68 82 AK 82 31 78 62 98 84 75 83 DE 82 32 72 89 96 70 69 81 FL 82 33 73 94 94 78 66 77 MI 82 34 74 66 92 51 60 83 OK 82 35 76 72 ≥99 78 66 80 WV 82 36 78 69 ≥98 81 76 80 WY 82 37 78 44 79 77 58 82 AZ 81 38 73 67 89 72 73 82 AR 81 39 75 69 84 80 72 79 HI 81 40 75 65 76 68 77 56 UT 80 41 76 58 87 65 60 80 AL 79 42 72 87 89 67 68 80 NY 79 43 76 68 94 65 65 85 LA 78 44 66 68 98 87 65 76 NM 78 45 71 71 90 73 68 76 SC 78 46 67 53 83 72 64 76 GA 75 47 66 86 90 64 62 76 MS 74 48 61 44 85 68 63 72 RI 70 49 72 52 74 72 66 76 NV 65 50 55 37 71 50 41 64 Source: NCES, 2012, http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014391.pdf Note: The AFGR shows 4-year on-time graduation rates that provide measures of the percent of students that successfully complete high school in 4 years with a regular high school diploma * Ranked by Female

75

76 appendices

APPENDIX D10 Total Fall Enrollment in Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions, by Attendance Status, Sex, State or Jurisdiction, 2013-14

FULL-TIME PART-TIME

Total Males Females Males Females % total Rank by females Total U.S. AZ MS IA MN DE LA GA AK SC NC AR ME FL TN NH KY HI AL CT NM VA MA MD MO NY

20,375,789 694,123 173,634 339,738 441,491 59,615 251,887 533,424 34,890 257,844 575,198 172,224 70,849 1,125,810 338,197 92,440 273,073 76,434 305,712 200,966 153,455 583,755 514,008 363,771 438,222 1,304,230

OH 697,647 IL 842,888 TX 1,541,378

5,682,166 179,273 54,536 93,824 107,181 16,025 71,515 151,280 7,090 77,600 160,139 48,312 20,489 285,310 104,647 26,839 74,015 19,192 90,022 58,225 35,597 159,354 161,041 88,953 123,191 412,687

6,914,946 3,178,620 4,600,057 280,864 89,686 144,300 78,688 14,030 26,380 130,782 41,146 73,986 138,939 69,361 126,010 21,171 8,263 14,156 99,225 31,272 49,875 202,518 66,863 112,763 9,311 7,190 11,299 99,597 28,075 52,572 210,027 77,201 127,831 62,455 23,371 38,086 24,644 9,241 16,475 369,326 188,032 283,142 133,296 37,748 62,506 33,198 12,136 20,267 97,800 42,072 59,186 25,493 13,314 18,435 116,634 40,092 58,964 69,394 27,432 45,915 44,413 30,544 42,901 194,623 92,646 137,132 192,013 61,751 99,203 104,820 68,778 101,220 148,389 67,546 99,096 498,437 155,437 237,669

206,392 239,811 225,063 260,136 378,901 448,538

97,694 142,705 293,708

153,750 214,984 420,231

57% 61% 61% 60% 60% 59% 59% 59% 59% 59% 59% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 57% 57% 57% 57% 57% 57% 57% 57% 56% 56%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

56% 56% 56%

26 27 28

FULL-TIME PART-TIME

Total Males Females Males Females % total Rank by females Total RI 83,460 ID 109,318 OK 220,897 SD 55,129 WI 364,021 NV 116,738 PA 765,582 IN 444,364 MI 643,592 NE 137,943 CO 358,723 KS 215,855 WA 363,377 OR 251,106 NJ 436,939 VT 43,534 CA 2,636,921 MT 52,777 WY 37,084 UT 264,255 ND 55,063 WV 157,954

28,045 33,612 8,379 29,299 33,350 18,606 65,027 76,578 31,804 16,595 17,384 7,601 108,999 124,492 51,003 27,231 33,413 24,380 256,235 292,466 82,455 131,401 155,023 66,047 176,077 200,368 109,899 42,041 48,809 19,382 97,207 110,187 63,491 61,637 67,826 35,551 115,712 134,861 47,934 72,684 84,379 41,058 131,970 144,931 66,932 16,033 16,415 3,885 658,149 783,689 549,589 18,898 19,213 5,637 10,375 10,083 7,294 86,006 91,907 41,809 19,367 18,442 7,636 38,040 43,252 40,833

13,424 28,063 47,488 13,549 79,527 31,714 134,426 91,893 157,248 27,711 87,838 50,841 64,870 52,985 93,106 7,201 645,494 9,029 9,332 44,533 9,618 35,829

56% 56% 56% 56% 56% 56% 56% 56% 56% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 54% 54% 54% 54% 52% 52% 51% 50%

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associates or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2013 and Spring 2014, Enrollment component. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/ dt14_304.30.asp

APPENDIX D12 Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Occupations, 2013 RANKED BY WOMEN IN STEM

% of All Emp. STEM Occ.

Percent Rank

U.S. 4.6% MD 7.5% 1 MA 7.0% 2 VA 6.2% 3 CO 6.1% 4 WA 5.5% 5 MN 5.5% 6 CT 5.3% 7 CA 5.3% 8 NJ 5.2% 9 UT 5.2% 10 DE 5.1% 11 VT 5.1% 12 OR 5.0% 13 NC 4.9% 14 RI 4.8% 15 PA 4.8% 16 IA 4.8% 17 AZ 4.8% 18 KS 4.6% 19 IL 4.5% 20 NH 4.5% 21 MS 4.4% 22 TX 4.3% 23 OH 4.3% 24 MI 4.3% 25

Women’s Share All STEM Workers

Percent

28.8% 34.4% 31.9% 29.6% 28.9% 25.7% 29.7% 30.2% 28.9% 28.8% 23.5% 29.8% 33.6% 28.2% 30.5% 29 .6% 30.4% 32.2% 27.1% 28.7% 28.2% 24.6% 30.9% 26.5% 28.6% 26.5%

RANKED BY ALL STEM WORKERS % of ALL Emp. STEM Occ.

Percent Rank

NY 4.3% 26 GA 4.2% 27 ND 4.2% 28 NM 4.1% 29 AL 4.0% 30 ID 4.0% 31 AK 4.0% 32 WI 3.9% 33 TN 3.8% 34 HI 3.8% 35 ME 3.8% 36 MT 3.7% 37 IN 3.6% 38 MY 3.5% 39 NE 3.5% 40 OK 3.5% 41 SC 3.5% 42 FL 3.5% 43 AR 3.4% 44 NV 3.4% 45 KY 3.3% 46 WV 3.3% 47 LA 3.2% 48 MS 3.1% 49 SD 2.6% 50

Women’s Share All STEM Workers Percent 30.8% 27.8% 32.4% 25.4% 26.5% 26.1% 25.2% 27.8% 30.1% 30.0% 29.2% 32.4% 25.7% 33.0% 25.9% 25.1% 28.2% 28.7% 30.0% 31.0% 27.0% 25.5% 27.7% 32.9% 27.8%

% of All Emp. Women STEM Occ. Percent

Women’s Share All STEM Workers

Percent Rank

U.S. 4.6% 28.8% MD 7.5% 34.4% 1 VT 5.1% 33.6% 2 WY 3.5% 33.0% 3 MS 3.1% 32.9% 4 ND 4.2% 32.4% 5 MT 3.7% 32.4% 6 IA 4.8% 32.2% 7 MS 7.0% 31.9% 8 NV 3.4% 31.0% 9 MS 4.4% 30.9% 10 NY 4.3% 30.8% 11 NC 4.9% 30.5% 12 PA 4.8% 30.4% 13 CT 5.3% 30.2% 14 TN 3.8% 30.1% 15 HI 3.8% 30.0% 16 AR 3.4% 30.0% 17 DE 5.1% 29.8% 18 MN 5.5% 29.7% 19 VA 6.2% 29.6% 20 RI 4.8% 29.6% 21 ME 3.8% 29.2% 22 CA 5.3% 28.9% 23 CO 6.1% 28.9% 24 NJ 5.2% 28.8% 25

% of All Emp. Women STEM Occ.

FL KS OH OR IL SC GA SD WI LA AZ KY MI TX AL ID NE WA IN WV NM AK OK NH UT

Percent

Women’s Share All STEM Workers Percent Rank

3.5% 4.6% 4.3% 5.0% 4.5% 3.5% 4.2% 2.6% 3.9% 3.2% 4.8% 3.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.0% 4.0% 3.5% 5.5% 3.6% 3.3% 4.1% 4.0% 3.5% 4.5% 5.2%

28.7% 26 28.7% 27 28.6% 28 28.2% 29 28.2% 30 28.2% 31 27.8% 32 27.8% 33 27.8% 34 27.7% 35 27.1% 36 27.0% 37 26.5% 38 26.5% 39 26.5% 40 26.1% 41 25.9% 42 25.7% 43 25.7% 44 25.5% 45 25.4% 46 25.2% 47 25.1% 48 24.6% 49 23.5% 50

Source: IWPR analysis of American Community Survey data, 2013, retrieved from www.statusofwomendata.org/explore-the-data/download-the-data/ Notes: For employed women aged 16 and older. This definition of STEM occupation follows the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics definition of STEM occupations, which includes the social sciences and managerial occupations in social science fields, but excludes support occupations, health occupations, and most technical and trade occupations that do not require a four-year degree

77

78 appendices

APPENDIX D16 States Employment Status of the Civilian Non-Institutional Population by Women, 2015 Annual Averages, Preliminary CIVILIAN NON-INSTITUTIONAL LABOR FORCE - WOMEN Civilian noninstit. pop. (in 1000s)

Number (in 1000s)

% of pop.

Employment Unemployment Number Number % of Rate pop. (in 1000s) (in 1000s)

U.S. 129,700 NV 1,134 MS 1,211 CA 15,607 GA 4,086 NC 4,095 AL 2,008 SC 2,010 WV 764 NJ 3,698 NM 825 LA 1,879 TN 2,697 AZ 2,699 AK 264 CT 1,497 WA 2,844 FL 8,469 OR 1,643 DE 394 MD 2,480 IL 5,214 NY 8,294 MI 4,072

73,510 56.7 69,703 53.7 648 57.2 601 53.0 621 51.3 578 47.7 8,586 55.0 8,047 51.6 2,265 55.4 2,123 52.0 2,294 56.0 2,150 52.5 1,023 51.0 960 47.8 1,104 55.0 1,036 51.6 367 48.0 344 45.0 2,103 56.9 1,976 53.4 433 52.5 407 49.3 1,042 55.4 980 52.1 1,428 52.9 1,344 49.8 1,454 53.9 1,371 50.8 164 62.3 155 58.9 920 61.4 869 58.1 1,632 57.4 1,543 54.2 4,498 53.1 4,257 50.3 921 56.0 871 53.0 233 59.1 220 55.9 1,543 62.2 1,461 58.9 3,066 58.8 2,905 55.7 4,570 55.1 4,330 52.2 2,252 55.3 2,139 52.5

MO PA RI IN OH

1,493 60.6 3,066 57.7 274 61.2 1,550 58.5 2,709 57.2

2,462 5,317 448 2,648 4,735

CIVILIAN NON-INSTITUTIONAL LABOR FORCE - WOMEN

1,420 57.7 2,915 54.8 261 58.2 1,476 55.7 2,578 54.4

Rank

3,807 47 43 540 142 144 63 68 23 127 26 62 84 83 9 51 89 241 50 12 82 161 239 112

5.2 7.2 1 6.9 2 6.3 3 6.3 4 6.3 5 6.2 6 6.2 7 6.2 8 6.0 9 6.0 10 5.9 11 5.9 12 5.7 13 5.6 14 5.5 15 5.5 16 5.4 17 5.4 18 5.3 19 5.3 20 5.2 21 5.2 22 5.0 23

73 151 13 74 131

4.9 24 4.9 25 4.9 26 4.8 27 4.8 28

Civilian noninstit. pop. (in 1000s) AR 1,193 KY 1,785 WI 2,321 VA 3,386 MA 2,863 TX 10,529 ME 563 KS 1,130 UT 1,077 OK 1,534 CO 2,130 ID 631 WY 223 IA 1,237 NH 553 HI 559 MN 2,177 MT 409 SD 329 VT 264 NE 735 ND 287

Number (in 1000s) 632 922 1,479 1,986 1,746 5,836 324 696 623 851 1,276 364 136 812 352 322 1,411 246 215 168 471 186

% of pop.

Employment Unemployment Number Number % of Rate pop. (in 1000s) (in 1000s)

53.0 51.7 63.7 58.7 61.0 55.4 57.5 61.6 57.8 55.5 59.9 57.6 61.2 65.7 63.7 57.6 64.8 60.1 65.5 63.8 64.1 64.9

Rank

602 50.5 30 4.7 29 879 49.2 44 4.7 30 1,411 60.8 68 4.6 31 1,899 56.1 87 4.4 32 1,670 58.3 75 4.3 33 5,587 53.1 249 4.3 34 311 55.1 14 4.2 35 668 59.1 29 4.1 36 597 55.5 26 4.1 37 818 53.3 33 3.9 38 1,228 57.6 49 3.8 39 350 55.5 14 3.7 40 131 58.9 5 3.7 41 785 63.5 28 3.4 42 340 61.6 12 3.3 43 312 55.8 10 3.2 44 1,366 62.8 45 3.2 45 238 58.2 8 3.2 46 209 63.5 7 3.2 47 163 61.8 5 3.1 48 458 62.3 13 2.8 49 182 63.4 5 2.4 50

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey. Ranked by: Unemployment Rate Note: Data for demographic groups are not shown when the labor force base does not meet the BLS publication standard of reliability for the area in question, as determined by the sample size. Items may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates for the race groups shown in the table do not sum to totals because data are not presented for all races. In addition, persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race and, therefore, are classified by ethnicity as well as by race. Data incorporate updated 2010 census-based population controls. For information on the preliminary nature of these data, see www.bls.gov/lau/pnote14full2015.pdf

APPENDIX D17 Distribution of Employed Women Across Broad Occupational Groups by State, Aged 16 and Older, 2013 Manage., Bus., Prof. + Serv. (3) Sales + Off. + Adm. Nat. Res., Prod., Trans. # Women + Fin. (1) Rel. (2) Rel, Supp. (4) Cons./Main + Mat. Mov. Workers %/Rank %/Rank %/Rank % % % %

Manage., Bus., Prof. + Serv. (3) Sales + Off. + Adm. Nat. Res., Prod., Trans. # Women + Fin. (1) Rel. (2) Rel, Supp. (4) Cons./Main + Mat. Mov. Workers %/Rank %/Rank %/Rank % % % %

U.S.

13.7%

26.3%

21.8%

11.4%

20.3%

0.9%

5.7%

69,165,921

RI

11.9%/10

28.2%/43 22.0%/27

10.4%

21.1%

0.7%

5.7%

NH

13.3%/28

30.9%/49

18.7%1

10.9%

20.5%

1.1%

4.6%

332,378

IA

13.1%/25

24.9%/13 22.0%/28

10.4%

21.4%

0.7%

7.5%

254,728 749,721

UT

12.5%/17

25.5%/19

19.4%/2

11.6%

23.9%

0.7%

6.4%

579,634

SD

11.0%/6

23.3%/3

22.1%/29

11.1%

25.2%

1.0%

6.2%

209,123

NJ

15.0%/45

28.2%/42

19.6%/3

11.1%

20.3%

0.3%

5.5%

2,021,165

WA

14.9%/43

25.9%/22 22.2%/30

10.6%

19.9%

1.5%

5.2%

1,516,527

MD

17.9%/50

30.0%/48

19.7%/4

9.3%

19.5%

0.6%

3.1%

1,494,760

CA

14.8%/42

24.9%/12 22.3%/31

11.7%

19.4%

1.4%

5.5%

7,882,803

MA

16.5%/49

31.0%/50

19.8%/5

9.7%

18.1%

0.5%

4.3%

1,678,738

TX

13.9%/37

25.0%/15 22.4%/32

12.3%

20.9%

0.8%

4.7%

5,503,194

KS

13.6%/35

28.0%/40

20.0%/6

10.2%

21.4%

1.1%

5.7%

657,533

OH

12.5%/16

25.9%/23 22.4%/33

10.6%

20.5%

0.7%

7.4%

2,612,660

GA

14.0%/38

25.5%/17

20.2%/7

12.4%

19.9%

0.9%

7.1%

2,099,629

VT

13.7%/36

28.9%/45 22.5%/34

8.7%

19.4%

1.1%

5.8%

158,688

VA

16.5%/48

28.9%/44

20.3%/8

10.8%

18.3%

0.7%

4.6%

1,931,057

ME

12.9%/24

26.8%/33 22.5%/35

10.0%

21.7%

0.9%

5.2%

323,067

TN

12.6%/19

25.6%/20

20.5%/9

11.5%

20.9%

0.7%

8.3%

1,373,338

FL

12.7%/22

24.2%/6

22.7%/36

13.9%

21.6%

0.8%

4.0%

4,064,415

WI

13.3%/29

24.9%/11 20.5%/10

10.4%

21.4%

1.1%

8.3%

1,391,839

HI

13.3%/31

23.8%/5

22.7%/37

15.5%

20.7%

0.7%

3.2%

316,755

AL

12.0%/12

26.5%/28 20.5%/11

12.2%

20.0%

1.2%

7.6%

945,511

AZ

13.5%/33

24.5%/9 22.8%/38

12.5%

21.1%

1.2%

4.5%

1,304,785

AK

14.1%/39

27.9%/39 20.5%/12

11.0%

21.1%

1.7%

3.6%

171,832

MI

12.3%/14

24.4%/8

22.8%/39

11.5%

20.6%

0.7%

7.8%

2,129,043

AR

10.5%/3

26.6%/30 20.7%/13

11.6%

22.0%

0.9%

7.6%

590,749

ID

10.4%/2

23.3%/2

22.8%/40

10.4%

25.1%

1.6%

6.4%

321,594

OK

12.7%/21

26.2%/25 21.0%/14

11.3%

22.4%

1.5%

4.9%

796,931

NY

13.5%/34

29.2%/46 22.9%/41

10.4%

19.2%

0.6%

4.1%

4,483,238

IL

14.1%/40

25.9%/24 21.0%/15

10.9%

20.7%

0.5%

6.7%

2,929,879

MS

11.0%/7

25.0%/14 23.2%/42

13.0%

19.0%

1.0%

7.8%

593,145

DE

16.2%/47

26.9%/34 21.1%/16

10.0%

21.3%

0.4%

4.1%

209,562

OR

13.3%/30

25.5%/18 23.4%/43

10.8%

19.7%

1.5%

5.7%

851,606

NC

13.2%/26

27.2%/37 21.3%/17

11.5%

18.5%

0.7%

7.5%

2,129,216

ND

11.9%v11

26.5%/27 24.7%/44

9.6%

22.9%

0.6%

3.8%

181,214

IN

11.7%/9

24.8%/10 21.4%/18

10.5%

20.8%

0.7%

10.2%

1,438,314

LA

10.9%/5

26.2%/26 24.8%/45

12.0%

21.8%

1.0%

3.3%

959,691

PA

12.8%/23

27.8%/38 21.4%/19

10.9%

21.0%

0.7%

5.6%

2,901,615

NM

12.4%/15

26.6%/31 24.9%/46

10.4%

20.1%

1.1%

4.5%

406,972

MN

14.9%/44

26.5%/29 21.4%/20

10.7%

19.9%

0.7%

5.9%

1,372,947

WY

13.3%/27

28.2%/41 25.1%/47

9.3%

18.7%

1.6%

3.8%

134,483

NE

13.5%/32

25.3%/16 21.6%/21

10.0%

22.0%

1.1%

6.6%

462,498

WV

10.3%/1

27.1%/35 25.1%/48

11.2%

21.5%

0.3%

4.5%

350,297

CO

16.0%/46

26.7%/32 21.6%/22

11.4%

19.4%

1.1%

3.8%

1,214,440

MT

12.6%/20

23.7%/4

25.2%/49

9.3%

23.0%

1.5%

4.6%

227,253

KY

10.6%/4

27.1%/36 21.7%/23

11.0%

21.2%

0.9%

7.6%

896,289

NV

11.4%/8

19.6%/1

28.8%/50

14.1%

20.7%

0.7%

4.7%

585,551

CT

14.6%/41

29.3%/47 21.7%/24

11.0%

18.1%

0.6%

4.7%

865,543

SC

12.3%/13

24.3%/7

21.8%/25

12.5%

20.6%

0.8%

7.7%

1,017,597

MO

12.5%/18

25.8%/21 21.9%/26

11.0%

21.9%

0.6%

6.2%

1,373,120

Source: IWPR analysis of American Community Survey data (Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Version 5.0). IWPR analysis of American Community Survey data, 2013. Retrieved from: www.statusofwomendata. org/explore-the-data/download-the-data

79

80 appendices

APPENDIX D13 Living Wage Calculation for AZ, 2016 Hourly Wages 1 Adult

Living Wage Poverty Wage Minimum Wage

$10.38 $5.00 $8.05

1 Adult 1 1 Child

1 Adult 2 2 Children

1 Adult 3 Children

2 Adults (1 Working)

$22.67 $7.00 $8.05

$28.59 $10.00 $8.05

$37.55 $11.00 $8.05

$17.47 $7.00 $8.05

2 Adults (1 Working) 2 Adults (1 Working) 2 Adults (1 Working) 2 Adults 1 Child 2 Children 3 Children $21.59 $10.00 $8.05

$24.13 $11.00 $8.05

$28.18 $13.00 $8.05

$8.73 $3.00 $8.05

2 Adults 2 Adults 2 Adults 1 Child 2 Children 3 Children $12.62 $5.00 $8.05

$15.64 $5.00 $8.05

$19.41 $6.00 $8.05

Source: http://livingwage.mit.edu/states/04; © 2016 Dr. Amy K. Glasmeier and the MA Institute of Technology; The living wage shown is the hourly rate that an individual must earn to support their family, if they are the sole provider and are working full-time (2080 hours per year). All values are per adult in a family unless otherwise noted. The state minimum wage is the same for all individuals, regardless of how many dependents they may have. The poverty rate is typically quoted as gross annual income. We have converted it to an hourly wage for the sake of comparison; For further detail, please reference the technical documentation here.

APPENDIX D14 Female Unemployment,

U.S. and AZ, 2015

GROUP Total Women White, women Black/African American, women Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, women Women, 16 to 19 years Women, 20 to 24 years Women, 25 to 34 years Women, 35 to 44 years Women, 45 to 54 years Women, 55 to 64 years Women, 65 years and over

APPENDIX D15 CIVILIAN NON-INSTITUTIONAL LABOR FORCE U.S. Arizona Rate% Rate % 5.3 5.2 4.5 8.9 7.1 15.5 8.5 5.5 4.4 3.8 3.6 3.9

Source: bls 2015 Annual Averages; WWW.BLS.GOV/LAU/#EX14

6.0 5.7 5.5 8.2 8.2 14.6 6.9 5.6 5.0 4.8 4.6 6.8

AZ Employment Status of the Civilian Noninstitutional Population, 2014

Group

Unemployment Rate (%)

Total Men Women White, women Black or Afr. Am., women Asian, women Hisp. or Latino ethnicity, women Married women, spouse present

7.0 6.9 7.1 6.3 6.5 4.6 8.1 4.8

Women who maintain families

8.8

Source: BLS, 2014; www.bls.gov/lau/table14full14.pdf

APPENDIX D18 Occupational Categories in AZ, 2009-2013

% comprised of Female

Med. earn ($1) for Male

Med. earn ($1) for Female

Civilian employed population 16 years + over 46.9% $37,227 $28,156 Management, bus., science + arts: 50.6% $62,151 $43,324 Management, bus. + financial: 44.4% $65,616 $48,179 Management 39.3% $69,218 $50,781 Business + financial operations 54.4% $59,028 $45,330 Computer, engineering + science: 23.4% $71,417 $55,504 Computer + mathematical 25.9% $68,896 $57,684 Architecture + engineering 13.6% $77,308 $60,299 Life, physical + social science 45.0% $54,108 $49,354 Educ., legal, comm. service, arts + media: 63.4% $42,537 $35,328 Community + social services 61.1% $40,122 $37,471 Legal 54.4% $96,859 $51,985 Education, training+ library 71.4% $41,367 $33,880 Arts, design, entertainment, sports + media 44.1% $37,841 $25,187 Healthcare practitioner + tech.: 71.1% $70,605 $53,390

Health diagnosing/treating practitioners/other tech.

70.4%

Health technologists + technicians Service: Healthcare support occupations

72.5% $42,613 $36,144 52.7% $21,099 $15,985 83.4% $24,865 $24,176

$92,720

$62,565

% comprised of Female

Med. earn ($1) for Male

Med. earn ($1) for Female

Protective service: 22.5% $45,348 $36,619 Fire fighting/prevention/other workers incl.

23.9% $33,048 $27,673 Law enforcement workers including 20.9% $54,965 $43,579 Food preparation + serving related 53.0% $15,010 $12,263 Building + grounds cleaning + maintenance 36.8% $19,753 $13,971 Personal care + service 75.7% $18,616 $15,361 Sales + office: 61.0% $32,247 $26,087 Sales + related 48.4% $36,570 $19,477 Office + administrative support 71.1% $28,963 $28,848 Natural resources, construction + maintenance: 4.2% $32,079 $21,553 Farming, fishing + forestry 19.6% $22,479 $12,139 Construction + extraction 2.5% $30,189 $28,963 Installation, maintenance + repair 4.1% $39,674 $34,832 Production, transportation + material moving: 22.7% $30,200 $21,355 Production 28.2% $32,788 $22,037 Transportation 17.2% $32,953 $25,863 Material moving 20.6% $19,702 $15,412 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 5-Year American Community Survey

81

“ My major struggle… finding a day care that [offers] discounts for working and student single mothers.”

Fernanda Munoz, college student and single mother of two

references SAFETY/SOCIAL JUSTICE 1 B lack, M.C., et. al. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report.

Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

2 Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. (2015).

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office Wins Grant to Eliminate Backlog of Untested Rape Kits. [Press Release]. Retrieved from: http://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/ newsroom/news-releases/2015/201509-10-Maricopa-County-AttorneysOffice-Wins-Grant-to-Eliminate-Backlogof-Untested-Rape-Kits.html.

3 Campbell, Jacquelyn, C., et.al. (2003).

Assessing Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Homicide. NIJ Journal, Issue No. 250, pp.17.

4 U .S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey, 2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B19126, Median Family Income in the Past 12 Months (In Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) by Family Type

by Presence of Own Children Under 18 Years using American FactFinder.

5 The cost of child care in Arizona. (2016, April). Retrieved from: http://www.epi. org/child-care-costs-in-the-unitedstates/#/1AZ

6 Gould, E. (2016, May). Capping child care costs at 10% of income would mean significant savings for families.

[Economic Snapshot]. Retrieved from: www.epi.org/publication/capping-childcare-costs-at-10-percent-of-incomewould-mean-significant-savings-forfamilies/

11 Guttmacher Institute. (2016, February 22). Health Coverage Trends Among U.S. Women of Reproductive Age Varied Considerably with ACA Implementation.

[News in Context] Retrieved from: https:// www.guttmacher.org/article/2016/02/ health-coverage-trends-among-uswomen-reproductive-age-variedconsiderably-aca

7 The Arizona Department of Corrections.

Corrections at a Glance. (2016, September 8). Retrieved from: https://corrections. az.gov/sites/default/files/REPORTS/ CAG/2016/august-2016_cag.pdf

12 Obamacare Facts. (2016, July 27).

ObamaCare Enrollment Hits 20 Million as of March 2016. [ObamaCare News Archive] Retrieved from: http://obamacarefacts. com/2016/07/27/obamacare-enrollmenthits-20-million-as-of-march-2016/

HEALTH

13 Ng, A.S., and Kay, K. (2012). Why It Matters: Teen Childbearing Education and Economic Well Being. Washington D.C.: The National Campaign to Revent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

8 National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health.

Health & Education. Mental Health Information. Overview. (2016, January).

Retrieved from: http://www.nimh.nih. gov/health/topics/women-and-mentalhealth/index.shtml 9 Vestal, C. (2015, April 1). How Severe is the Shortage of Substance Abuse Specialists?

[STATELINE Blog]. Retrieved from http:// www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-andanalysis/blogs/stateline/2015/4/01/ how-severe-is-the-shortage-ofsubstance-abuse-specialists 10 American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. About Suicide. Risk Factors and Warning Signs. (2016). Retrieved from: https://afsp.org/about-suicide/ risk-factors-and-warning-signs/

14 Mangino, J.G. (2008, May). Voices of Teen Mothers: Their Challenges, Support Systems, and Successes (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from: http://dscholarship.pitt.edu/7427/1/manginojg_ etdPitt.May2008_final.pdf. (p.143).

15 Ng, A.S., and Kay, K. (2012). Why It Matters: Teen Childbearing Education and Economic Well Being. Washington D.C.: The National Campaign to Revent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

16 Dreweke, J. (2014, Spring). U.S. Abortion Rate Continued to Decline While Debate Over Means to the End Escalates.

Guttmacher Policy Review, Volume 17, Number 2. Retrieved from: https://www. guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ pubs/gpr/17/2/gpr170202.pdf 17 Eckholm, E. (2014, February 2). Abortions Declining in U.S., Study Finds. The New York Times, pp. A10. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/us/ abortions-declining-in-us-study-finds. html?_r=1 18 Cervical Cancer rates by Race and Ethnicity. (2016, June 16). Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/ statistics/race.htm 19 A gedegoke, O., et. al. (2012, October).

Cervical cancer trends in the United States: a 35-year population-based analysis. Journal of Women’s Health, Volume 21(10), 1031-1037. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/22816437 20 Annual Number (in Thousands) of New Cases of Diagnosed Diabetes Among Adults Aged 18-79 Years, United States, 1980-2014. (2015, December 1).

Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/ diabetes/statistics/incidence/fig1.htm

83

84 references

EDUCATION/ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT 21 Children by Household Head’s Educational Attainment. (2016, February). Retrieved from: http://datacenter.kidscount. org/data/tables/5203-childrenby-household-heads-educationalattainment?loc=4&loct=2#detailed/2/4/tr ue/869,36,868,867,133/1312,1313,1314,1 315,1316/11679,11680 22 Sawhill, I.V., et. al., (2012, September 20).

Pathways to the Middle Class: Balancing personal and public responsibilities.

Retrieved from Center on Children & Families at Brookings, The Brookings Institution: https://www.brookings.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2016/06/0920pathways-middle-class-sawhill-winship. pdf, pp.14.

23 National Women’s Law Center. When Girls Don’t Graduate, We All Fail: A Call to Improve High School Graduation Rates for Girls. (2007). Retrieved from: http:// www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ when_girls_dont_graduate.pdf 24 Christopher, (2013, March, 9). 3 Reasons Students Dropout of High School.

Retrieved from: http://www.uwaystan. org/blog-entry/09-03-2013/3-reasonsstudents-dropout-high-school 25 National Women’s Law Center. When Girls Don’t Graduate, We All Fail: A Call to Improve High School Graduation Rates for Girls. (2007). Retrieved from: http:// www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ when_girls_dont_graduate.pdf

26 U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey, 2011 - 2013 Amercian Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, Table S1501 U.S., Education Attainment, using American FactFinder.

27 U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey, 2011 - 2013 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, Table S1501 AZ, Education Attainment, using American FactFinder.

28 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), (2014, January). Graduation rates of first-time, full-time bachelor’s degreeseeking students at 4-year postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, time to completion, sex and control of institution: Select cohort entry years 1996-2006.

Table 326.10 Retrieved from: http://nces. ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/ dt13_326.10.asp 29 Shapiro, D., et. al. (2015, November).

Completing College: A National View of Student Attainment Rates - Fall 2009 Cohort (Signature Report No. 10). Herndon, VA: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.

30 Beede, D., et. al. (2011, August).

Women in Stem: A Gender Gap to Innovation. Executive Summary. (U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration). (ESA Issue Brief #04-2011). http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED523766.pdf

31 Handelsman, J., et. al. (2015, September, 14). Implicit Bias. Retrieved from White House Office of Science and Technology Website: 32 Image of STEM: What Stories Need to be Told? Retrieved from: https://www. whitehouse.gov/webform/image-stemwhat-stories-stem-need-be-told 33 U.S. Federal Poverty Guidelines Used to Determine Financial Eligibility for Certain Federal Programs. (2016, January, 25).

Retrieved from: https://aspe.hhs.gov/ poverty-guidelines 34 Status of Women in the United States. (2016). Retrieved from: http://statusofwomendata.org/ explore-the-data/state-data/ arizona/#employment-earnings 35 Goudreau, J. (2011, March, 7). 20 Surprising Jobs Women are Taking Over.

Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.com/ sites/jennagoudreau/2011/03/07/20surprising-jobs-women-are-takingover/#127cd8226f0b 36 Rice, V.H., (2015=6, June, 2). She’s the Boss: Women-Owned Businesses in Arizona. Retrieved from: https://www. azeconomy.org/2016/06/featured/ shes-the-boss-facts-about-womenowned-businesses-in-arizona/

PREPARED BY

Bill Hart, Senior Policy Analyst and Keiran Vitek, MSW, Policy Analyst

2828 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1125 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602.532.2800 | 602.532.2801 fax AZFW.org | info@azfw.org email A supporting organization of the Arizona Community Foundation